IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] draft-boutier-homenet-source-specific-routing-00

Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> Fri, 12 July 2013 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
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 099BF21F9D91 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DQKvEtLTI8cL for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4251521F9F11 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786E2870092; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:09:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zuB0LjTOz23b; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:09:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 56EA387007D; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:09:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51E0546C.3090106@globis.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:09:32 +0200
From: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@googlemail.com>
References: <7ippuz4fb8.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <7ibo6iw7ch.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAKD1Yr0_yZsvw58hwjY++9RJT9urkKbX33zzwTjyWGTKK7RoVg@mail.gmail.com> <87ehbdi33a.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAKD1Yr0x=j0tvkM2X8bGw4T538mnm7CV592GBHO76dSVhGLE7w@mail.gmail.com> <87wqp0lal6.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAKD1Yr1knC76T14bcGY3kbYBMNfhvC9vACjguNaWCdRXxZ-4UA@mail.gmail.com> <87bo6bwzxn.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAGnRvuqdhmYiUk5roQw0iNbyfm49Fixjo_44f_HcCLjKpZdYNA@mail.gmail.com> <8761wjwyt7.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAGnRvuqX9fcYShdJVs9QocEdSOp3VJPHAnF1phF6XQ+V+NdEaQ@mail.gmail.com> <87ppuq7epd.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAGnRvup2yG6uw-qx2xmAbMLdOMADX7=nde12VP8ie0Lb26y7Ww@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0zRoe+E=Rk7s-spChvbmB4tijGdt_U2NWQPUA-6=YPbA@mail.gmail.com> <87ip0hkzqh.wl%jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <CAGnRvuq1TbZ5pP1pSrRdOtauuVRE9nC=CaLQ9d0eOFdcWiLozQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnRvuq1TbZ5pP1pSrRdOtauuVRE9nC=CaLQ9d0eOFdcWiLozQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Subject: Re: [homenet] draft-boutier-homenet-source-specific-routing-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: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:09:57 -0000

Henning Rogge wrote:
> The problem with "forbidding" such topologies will be that things will
> break and users will not know why.

Sure, but users are also probably going to plug IPv4 only routers into
the middle of Homenet.

As long as it all breaks reasonably gracefully, that's the best you can do.

>
> Henning Rogge
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek
> <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> wrote:
>>> But isn't this an impossible requirement to meet in reality?
>> I have no idea.  We're just exploring the space of possible solutions
>> right now -- hey, it's not like we've had a lot of operational
>> experience with source-specific routing yet.  We're playing with
>> things, and looking what breaks.
>>
>>> What if users plug things in in such a way that there is no such
>>> path between two given gateways?
>> Things break.  We make sure things break as gracefully as possible.
>> Then we'll need to ask ourselves whether we want to support such
>> hybrid topologies in the first place.
>>
>> (My gut instinct is to agree with you -- we'll probably want to forbid
>> hybrid networks --, but I'm keeping an open mind until we learn more.)
>>
>> -- Juliusz
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> homenet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email