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

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 02 December 2009 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
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 5C52E3A6812 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:43:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.304
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.295, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 amEdRg7zveH4 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC493A682D for <behave@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:43:40 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAB9xFUurRN+K/2dsb2JhbACKN7R+mCIChC8EgWo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,326,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="112491551"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Dec 2009 03:43:33 +0000
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.195]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nB23hW8O025625; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:43:33 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: marka@isc.org
References: <bcff0fba0912011405x56975fe7t442f60ab8f9a1284@mail.gmail.com> <003501ca72f2$e6021a30$d40c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <000801ca72f8$c3fa5820$c3f0200a@cisco.com> <200912020254.nB22sIvO028323@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:43:32 -0800
Message-ID: <002301ca7301$9ef3f4b0$c3f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-reply-to: <200912020254.nB22sIvO028323@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-index: Acpy+r/gc/iadQeGRg2r6hFSq12USAABqTbQ
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 03:43:41 -0000

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marka@isc.org [mailto:marka@isc.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:54 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Xu Xiaohu'; 'Cameron Byrne'; 'Simon Perreault'; behave@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] proprietary implementation v.s 
> standardisedprotocols//re: draft-xu-behave-nat-state-sync-00 
> 
> 
> In message <000801ca72f8$c3fa5820$c3f0200a@cisco.com>, "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.

Not being reachable is what I would define as 'harmful'.

> > 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.

draft-wing-behave-learn-prefix-05, not yet published, allows
multiple prefixes as well.  It also removes the unicast/ASM/SSM
specifics and relies on the IPv6 prefix itself to declare if
its unicast/ASM/SSM.

-d


>  
> > 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