Re: [homenet] dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)

Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org> Wed, 29 October 2014 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <gettysjim@gmail.com>
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 CE0711A01C6; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 4KSESS9uG37m; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18FD01A0171; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id u20so2418589oif.22 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=f/WZlpDJU9UsoaWtJV2vPS4PGrqcO+8iTk3w5WyTYjI=; b=e2vZUKzP31vYR3BBuo8o3V9G1DlGq7P7ClXZyYs3WAkhbM/qlYyA9XBRaEMsDWBhDX D86JZbW5s9Adu+L77YU2k0WiGfl/XGbqpXuHWZor92nh8Ve8HsBwS2CJeto+yyHudgGQ OjypYvNKz48NISc+ox5qBKfLh1PVRSQguKo0/E2O0NiSlUAavW6NkMOng/BYcavDFZKd SBwtEKF8TkII3C2FLc9bFcbk/MiJgCnqT18DWRl8nSHSX5xhCeUNNQyuQLpD5nspopLu 94uAyrR8ew8r70wtavnKY67MzOL5MVswqeoFPCC5IgUc6XOXoeBPfhjSTlqxc4fiOqYg DmVg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.157.100 with SMTP id wl4mr9228686oeb.37.1414595617464; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: gettysjim@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.4.203 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5450D7ED.9010806@globis.net>
References: <20141020204033.GD236844@jupiter.n2.diac24.net> <20141022190653.GB868521@jupiter.n2.diac24.net> <DFE4317C-E4B6-44AB-AED4-2FBBBD2888DA@cisco.com> <B445E8FD-13EE-4014-8D1C-7C9D4A188D2D@cisco.com> <544FF3F2.3050206@gmail.com> <20141029062837.GH5186@eidolon> <B6D9E5BD-8903-4133-8947-BB8AEAD97AA4@cisco.com> <5450D7ED.9010806@globis.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:13:37 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: -paScE3WgopxfKj55TksJCFvEao
Message-ID: <CAGhGL2DLLMghFCdXtbvRy1O7Ab8QPcEuPhZczOa8Mi9pmQnwVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01182fd047a90f05069135ba
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/gLOGay4m7N6hMXBnzPM7gV74HhU
Cc: Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <fred@cisco.com>, "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>
Subject: Re: [homenet] dst/src routing drafts (for IETF-91 rtgwg)
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:13:44 -0000

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> wrote:

>
>
> Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>
>> On Oct 28, 2014, at 11:28 PM, David Lamparter<equinox@diac24.net>  wrote:
>>
>>  What I'm personally wondering most in this regard is: to what extent
>>> will larger networks deploy multiple prefixes to the hosts?
>>>
>>
>> Well, define “larger”. Any network that gets a PI prefix is unlikely to
>> deploy multiple prefixes. The question is at what size network is makes
>> sense to obtain an AS number and a PI prefix, and use BGP to talk with
>> one’s upstream.
>>
> I don't agree with this statement for the following reasons.
>
> Availability: There are many enterprises that have very numerous far-flung
> sales-office type locations which do not host any critical data or
> applications, but which could benefit from higher availability than that
> provided by a single ISP provider (some of which are currently served by a
> specialised box offering a Very Small Office Service running dual IPSec
> tunnels to a central site, which then performs the break out to the
> corporate intranet/Internet)
>

​
​
​And we are now deploying home networks that are being used for home health
medical monitoring; having full fail-over to another ISP is in the process
of becoming a "life" issue​.
​
​


>
> Latency: There are many sites which could benefit from local Internet
> breakout to regional cloud services, where you don't want to suffer the
> latency associated with a back haul from an office in Australia to a
> regional hub in Hong Kong, or even East coast US to West coast US and back.
> You'd still also want some back up via the central breakout if the local
> breakout failed.
>
> Cost: There are cost savings to be made in many countries where private
> network services are still many orders of magnitude more expensive than
> plain old Internet. So Internet offload for non-mission-critical traffic
> can be very attractive. If you could achieve this via direct host-server
> connections using address selection rules or multipath TCP; rather than via
> PBR, GRE tunnels + NAT, that would be a lot simpler.

​

>
>
>    Wherever that boundary is, below that networks will use PA prefixes.
>> The question then becomes: will they multi home?
>>
>> And I think the answer today is that we don’t know the answer.
>>
> This I agree with.


​Ditto.  Though I have a personal opinion that they will... How else can
you be able to test that things are actually going to "work" in the face of
loss of one ISP? Anything not being tested on an ongoing basis is unlikely
to work in the case of failure.  If availability really matters, you care...

Jim

​


>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> RayH
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> homenet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>