IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 11 August 2017 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 6384A1321A4 for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Lhk0m1AsOQxl for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B46551321D9 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01272203B1 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:56:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8324806BA for <homenet@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:53:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: HOMENET <homenet@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <15F1CE39-82EE-4B0D-A31B-2C1805991541@fugue.com>
References: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DBF5904@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <20170810203843.xq7wxdxp27vqt4pz@mx4.yitter.info> <87wp6byvw5.fsf@toke.dk> <A9C8CA05-54A0-4160-B2F0-645744BD259E@fugue.com> <87poc3yt3d.fsf@toke.dk> <22E4B7B8-317F-4CBB-8536-D0AB345B0837@fugue.com> <87h8xez9ys.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1m+218+FX_G+2W-msDWmxP8XXMKF9S0faTeCBnEEzk1uw@mail.gmail.com> <877eyaz2jm.fsf@toke.dk> <CAPt1N1m5nVGD-y2VrbkoTEPTs4qF98oRxGuvd-Has1yzuS0fmg@mail.gmail.com> <874ltez1wg.fsf@toke.dk> <7E8390B5-9048-4783-B17F-6C9EA5610887@fugue.com> <7ivalujdfu.wl-jch@irif.fr> <15F1CE39-82EE-4B0D-A31B-2C1805991541@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:53:37 -0400
Message-ID: <22112.1502470417@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/i8YyjKkt9bQoiAxhFDwJtzvbXpM>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Status of draft-tldm-simple-homenet-naming CFA
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 16:53:40 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > Source-specific routing, however, is an incomplete solution.   Having
    > chosen the correct route based on the source address, we still have the
    > problem that one provider connection may be better than another for
    > connecting to a particular destination, and there may be no way to
    > figure that out using the default source address selection algorithm,
    > or even by using a more detailed source address selection algorithm
    > configured by DHCP.   Indeed, this is likely, not unlikely.

My problem with the MPVD solution is that it seems incomplete too.

The example that, in contrast to all other content, is when content is
zero-rated via 3G but not via WIFI. (generalized to any two uplinks)
I don't know the source address selection or source routing can deal with
that problem period.

It seems to me that we are re-inventing SHIM6, trying in vain to pretend we
never heard of that.  And I still don't understand why it was killed.

But, again, I want to adopt the document so that we can argue about this
as part of our charter work.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email