Re: [homenet] sorting out the right ipv6 addr to choose and name in a source specific world

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 12/18/14 4:39 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 19/12/2014 11:22, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>     > Shouldn't we reduce the amount of cross-posting at some point?
>     >
>     >>> mptcp, I'm told, is likely to show up in Apple and Google
>     products and
>     >>> infrastructure, and my idea (and many others) is that you
>     don't always have
>     >>> to pick the perfect address for the SYN, just one that works,
>     but rather one
>     >>> can add better addresses as one discovers them.
>     >
>     >> But bad luck if you need UDP.
>     >
>     >> Some form of intelligent probing does seem to be the answer,
>     >
>     > I'd like to attract your attention to the work that Matthieu
>     Boutier has
>     > been doing on mosh, Keith Winstein's UDP-based ssh replacement:
>     >
>     >   http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.mosh.devel/749
>     >
>     > Boutier's version of mosh builds connections across all
>     source/destination
>     > pairs, and picks the one with lowest RTT.
>
>     Sounds interesting. In the ideal world, that would be a pluggable
>     policy algorithm. Lowest RTT may not always be the best choice.
>     NAROS* suggested distributing policy from a single source, for
>     example.
>
>     The point about shim6, of course, is that allows you to change
>     horses in midstream without bothering the transport layer.
>     It's a real shame we don't know how to deploy it, especially
>     for homenets where nobody manages the routing policy.
>
>
> ​
> What were the problems with getting shim6 deployed? 
>
need a time machine

https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog35/presentations/schiller.pdf

> There appear to have been 
> ​a Linux implementation, and if the idea now has merit, that is enough
> of the market (which is very responsive) ​
> ​to get significant deployment, and to do so quickly. (codel/fq_codel
> went from concept to shipping code is under 3 months, with wide test
> deployment in a year, and now becoming default).  We aren't talking
> about 5 year product cycles any more.
>
> As to policy, the home routers themselves give us a place to enable
> people to state the policy they want (e.g. only use the LTE upstream
> if the cheap broadband service is unavailable...).
>                                     - Jim
>
>
>        Brian
>
>     * C. Launois, O. Bonaventure, and M. Lobelle. The NAROS approach
>     for IPv6
>     multihoming with traffic engineering. volume 2811 of Lecture Notes in
>     Computer
>     Science, pages 112–121. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003.
>
>     > It's a work in progress --
>     > there are multiple versions, and Matthieu has yet to decide which
>     > implementation he's going to submit for inclusion in mainline mosh.
>     >
>     > We hope to write that stuff down when Matthieu has decided which
>     is the
>     > "right" version, but I'm not promising any hard deadlines -- we
>     have a lot
>     > of stuff that we want to write down.
>     >
>     >> but certainly that needs to be generic because we cannot expect
>     >> all apps developers to reinvent it.
>     >
>     > Uh-huh.  But there's only one thing that's worse than
>     generalising from
>     > one example -- it's generalising from zero eexamples.
>     >
>     >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-naderi-ipv6-probing recently.
>     >
>     > I'll have a look, thanks for the pointer.
>     >
>     > -- Juliusz
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     homenet mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet