Re: [homenet] Redirect and source-specific routing

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 13 July 2015 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 811581AD0EA for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 00:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id USAp7CBCOH-1 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 00:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 138351AD0D3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 00:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA0761C9; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 00:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=RSU8fJChGUz8du27PSNW2HwgyDA=; b= VMiON96Hrjjf2L/sA1CYThgYxDH0q0cD/DVozSaXob6oLCRU9KW5QXkjJM0zLXP9 QqjmjovJXiqAqm9fz2c5vj2r7NgLYj9sqKGITzpVkg4aiE27iq+pwZXrmKEt+8Uv Idl/SZm8ZESphgw5RNpOEwrruF4+rindLCBH/m3Fdlw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=mKmV/3O5dRa/1LcLITh+inH8DO auQHzB3dm38+4r/MJSszLxO1CgW5hy160v/8d/fzAX7+oH9MC5xxaw6+OzBI7hbp 4LTkj5j61aROei34dx+YX7z2kyTp9KQGhv+nysHtdG/T+k0+jUmkMHboZezJQFsu xjSB/FMfZ+oa8wrWI=
Received: from gomlefisk.localdomain (unknown [173.38.220.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14358617B; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 00:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gomlefisk.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2959848C0EAC; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:23:24 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D49EA81A-D2F6-497D-AC5C-E6490DD72BC1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <877fq5fnxv.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 09:23:23 +0200
Message-Id: <E2BFAE26-67E9-493D-891B-C60085C8B31B@employees.org>
References: <877fq5fnxv.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/d6gz73zzzOcSfqNJ2ycOz01Vcw4>
Cc: homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] Redirect and source-specific routing
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 07:23:07 -0000

Juliusz,

> I'm wondering if there isn't some interaction between Redirect messages and source-specific routing that we're overlooking.  RFC 4861 Section 8.3 says the following:
> 
>   Redirect messages apply to all flows that are being sent to a given
>   destination.  That is, upon receipt of a Redirect for a Destination
>   Address, all Destination Cache entries to that address should be
>   updated to use the specified next-hop, regardless of the contents of
>   the Flow Label field that appears in the Redirected Header option.
> 
> It does not speak of the source address, so I assume that this applies to all sources.  Consider the following topology:
> 
>   ---- A ---+--- B ----
>             |
>             H
> 
> If A and B advertise non-overlapping source-specific default routes and H is multiplexing its traffic over source addresses in both source prefixes (say, it's using MP-TCP), its Destination Cache entry will flap between A and B.
> 
> If I'm right, that argues in favour of an update to RFC 4861.

you are right. these issues are currently being discussed in 6man.
see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-07

we haven’t reached a conclusion if a source aware redirect is needed or not (if that’s what you had in mind). by the way, there is also ICMP unreachable code 5 (Source address failed ingress/egress policy), which I would think the router should send, rather than the redirect in this case.

cheers,
Ole