IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 23 October 2012 09:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E6321F86AA for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 xtDkNo0VUiFk for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD08921F8654 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 02:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9N9kM7h019918 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:46:22 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk q9N9kM7h019918
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1350985583; bh=UY41FzI/r98Lg26jM6HRey5QtJg=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:References:To; b=jtUGDVcM1QyILx2L9cej1p/bwPCIPwG/pb6NFEjscwaE9gBnOYt7lKpIKMaKyG/fh pxczxc6q8H0CmgSPHbWF08C1Rr1xGh+sHaRXr5JhRZ7NA88nMGUmwgO1EdMBv3tZUt 01krCkz0+xOWcctjh1wwtY3aqJgGEHr61Tncf6CM=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id o9MAkM0430618069md ret-id none; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:46:23 +0100
Received: from ip-204-200.eduroam.soton.ac.uk (ip-204-200.eduroam.soton.ac.uk [152.78.204.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9N9kKWI014210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <homenet@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:46:20 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <841450C4-733D-441D-9757-01FD20E120B6@nominet.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:46:21 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|b26500145010e777ea8c46b88eb5b99ao9MAkM03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4662A74C-A693-4DAE-ABE3-7C87D84E4417@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <201210011801.q91I1tfW056624@gateway1.orleans.occnc.com> <506A07D1.8050605@gmail.com> <10328E81-3C94-455B-9A37-B421200A5C38@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|19238916f7ff9a0ada655caf80bba8cao9AAbJ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|10328E81-3C94-455B-9A37-B421200A5C38@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <7F6EA97D-5DA8-4872-A647-D879B1955824@gmail.com> <49FCFE49-9DFB-44D2-ADAD-636A3C80F906@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|09bc323dc12a06be7c21e18f2752cd05o9LECn03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|49FCFE49-9DFB-44D2-ADAD-636A3C80F906@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <7F4B245F-9355-4134-9176-EB7DB1634469@apple.com> <77A8749D-DF81-4816-8277-CB69861E524A@fugue.com> <C3720598-400C-4B83-9CEC-878B3FA8109E@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|3e5d3f7836c5b4ddbd99d74df88ecc6ao9LJ8r03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C3720598-400C-4B83-9CEC-878B3FA8109E@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <5085905A.8030206@mtcc.com> <52E31542-3B7C-4EC1-9B2C-3C9D8E6B3BB1@apple.com> <2D068486-D56A-4AD0-BD0F-F5E3F84D5204@nominet.org.uk> <CAKD1Yr2wgQWSghvQ7kVtVoOHdy+F4YE9MOWWawTyZUzqoXoDTA@mail.gmail.com> <841450C4-733D-4! 41D-9757-01FD20E120B6@nominet.org.uk> <4662A74C-A693-4DAE-ABE3-7C87D84E4417@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: "homenet@ietf.org Group" <homenet@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=o9MAkM043061806900; tid=o9MAkM0430618069md; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: q9N9kM7h019918
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [homenet] I-D Action: draft-haddad-homenet-multihomed-00
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homenet>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:46:27 -0000

On 23 Oct 2012, at 09:54, Ray Bellis <Ray.Bellis@nominet.org.uk> wrote:

> 
> On 23 Oct 2012, at 09:50, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> It can't deprecate it, but it can say that NPT66 is not supported in the homenet architecture.
> 
> Indeed.

We can capture those sentiments in -07, and use Brian's draft as just one example of why. 

When I said 'it was on the table', that was as something that could well happen. Personally, I would rather see the approach in ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-04 shorter term, and hope for better support in routing protocols longer term.

BTW, please note that RFC 3484 is now replaced by RFC 6724. It may take some time to adjust :)

Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email