IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 02 December 2009 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893A63A69E2 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:54:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.332, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jU9mDurJOl+0 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:54:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from farside.isc.org (farside.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb::5]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFE23A6813 for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:54:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "drugs.dv.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (not verified)) by farside.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E30E6065; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 02:54:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB22sIvO028323; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:54:18 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org)
Message-Id: <200912020254.nB22sIvO028323@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <bcff0fba0912011405x56975fe7t442f60ab8f9a1284@mail.gmail.com> <003501ca72f2$e6021a30$d40c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <000801ca72f8$c3fa5820$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:40:09 -0800." <000801ca72f8$c3fa5820$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:54:18 +1100
Sender: marka@isc.org
Cc: 'Cameron Byrne' <cb.list6@gmail.com>, behave@ietf.org, 'Xu Xiaohu' <xuxh@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:54:31 -0000

In message <000801ca72f8$c3fa5820$c3f0200a@cisco.com>om>, "Dan Wing" writes:
> ...
> > > 100% agree.  Members in a cluster failing can locally be resolved
> > > without bouncing the Pref64.  If entire cluster fails, this is very
> > > unlikely but catastrophic, i just want a fail safe that can work
> > > *mostly*, and if the networks really broke, asking a user to reboot
> > 
> > Ask a user or ask a huge amount of users?
> 
> All the affected users.
> 
> > By the way, if one uses one of those mechanisms defined in 
> > draft-wing-behave-learn-prefix, other than DNS64, to 
> > synthesize IPv6 addresses, does that mean the DNS server or 
> > the DHCP server should also dynamically detect the 
> > availability of each prefix64?
> 
> Whatever hands out the prefix (DNS, IPv6 router advertisements, 
> DHCPv6) should hand out a functioning prefix.  Providing a 
> non-functioning prefix is harmful.

Actually it shouldn't be.  If a prefix doesn't work it it like a
router being down.  The machines are just not reachable.
 
> The same is true of a DHCP server providing the IP address of 
> DNS servers, NTP servers, and suchlike.  If a DHCP server hands
> out IP addresses for broken (or dead) servers, it is harmful.

Which is why DHCP is designed to hand out multiple ones so that
individual failures are not a issue.
 
> Does that need to be stated, though?
> 
> -d

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email