Re: [Dime] [RFC3588bis-34] - Host-IP-Address AVP

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 18 September 2012 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057C321F8668 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MhnaPpP9Uxl3 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6A521F8666 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bkty12 with SMTP id y12so3087537bkt.31 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=Ndp20DCzfUhOTZ02CRlTQ+GCm3I9AT/9Sopw3h0ziFQ=; b=Zqkxx2vLDap14sKkhAi6uv/91qgTGwm6jhpDSn2oKv7yFQn0uE+Onk6VZmVn35haOZ Ug0u8h/9exScvgHY2wwSPapTCpFynfDj+AV9Xy3eXxHmvW/8zWmhG6SAf/++2lnNpEua gsHA5YTZdsv+DlVweB72dn/kGLB/zxbfEcM1o6+YSeYslNVW4ysAoCF98TJhlSywsDKV WgkfMctYLu4VOLiruc23rp5+3a2Xb19ukcY/pJnmkLZoMDLry6ZWjt6Y0YTmG8aGtGoL pKaejgTeapoBe1NPWCNMwiicLxU/NyoVzvp2+nQaiFVXO/viUfRc8zPqEu758E/D9tAh efXQ==
Received: by 10.204.128.202 with SMTP id l10mr51439bks.127.1347981279909; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:226:bbff:fe18:6e9c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g12sm8180021bkt.7.2012.09.18.08.14.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8BAB668F-5B65-4FBE-B49B-833EAFE47D49@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:14:33 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <99463A4A-9840-43B2-B29F-D942FD7AB757@gmail.com>
References: <5F42DFF905CBA544A7BBB0909003E1A3148F14F7C6@FRMRSSXCHMBSC1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <50570410.9000708@gmail.com> <5F42DFF905CBA544A7BBB0909003E1A3148F14F987@FRMRSSXCHMBSC1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <E4A11012-4F89-455F-AC98-57F188456D91@gmail.com> <50585DBF.20502@gmail.com> <593C8CD1-DAAC-4E39-BE6F-0FA754C706B1@gmail.com> <8BAB668F-5B65-4FBE-B49B-833EAFE47D49@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [RFC3588bis-34] - Host-IP-Address AVP
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 15:14:42 -0000

Ben,

On Sep 18, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> 
> On Sep 18, 2012, at 7:06 AM, jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Glen Zorn wrote:
>>> 
> 
>>> This doesn't really make sense to me: I was under the impression that a TCP connection was between two unique addresses.  Yes, a box might ___have_ a whole bunch of addresses it _could_ use, but that seems irrelevant in the case of TCP (but not SCTP).
>> 
>> Sure TCP is between just two IPs. I never claimed otherwise. What I mean
>> that say a Diameter node has IP1 to IP5. Only IP1 has a A/AAAA record or
>> given out to other parties for static configuration. During the CER/CEA
>> (and the TCP connection established to IP1) it tell in CEA that
>> "I btw also have IP2 to IP5". A clever implementation can make use of
>> this e.g. for the transport failure case I described.
>> 
> 
> This actually leads me to agree with the original poster that the behavior surrounding Host-IP-Address is underspecified. The problem is, "clever implementations" are bad for interoperability. If that (or other) behavior is desired, it should be documented. Otherwise any behavior beyond "use it for informational purposes only" is not likely to work across implementations.

First, we all agree that having more than one Host-IP-Address in case of
TCP is unnecessary. However, I am interested what possible (error) case
you have in mind that could cause interoperability issue?

- Jouni


> 
> I'm do not propose we fix this in 3588bis--it's too late in the process for that. But it might be worth a follow-on effort down the road.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> - Jouni
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>