Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

John Stracke <jstracke@centive.com> Tue, 01 April 2003 15:08 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17020; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:08:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 190NY2-0002P6-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 10:19:38 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1906hR-0002rF-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:20:13 -0500
Received: from carwash.centive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id QAA24467 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:03:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from minglewood.incentivesystems.com ([172.16.0.25]) by carwash.centive.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.11) with SMTP id M2003033116104622650 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:10:46 -0500
Received: from centive.com ([10.10.48.156]) by minglewood.incentivesystems.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:04:02 -0500
Message-ID: <3E88AD42.3090000@centive.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:04:02 -0500
From: John Stracke <jstracke@centive.com>
Organization: Centive
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
References: <077601c2f7be$e0fcdc70$ee1a4104@eagleswings>
In-Reply-To: <077601c2f7be$e0fcdc70$ee1a4104@eagleswings>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2003 21:04:02.0923 (UTC) FILETIME=[0ED6A3B0:01C2F7C9]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tony Hain wrote:

>Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>  
>
>>Of course, in the case of site-local addresses, you don't 
>>know for sure that you reached the _correct_ peer, unless you 
>>know for sure that the node you want to reach is in your 
>>site.  
>>    
>>
>
>Since the address block is ambiguous, routing will assure that if you
>reach a node it is the correct one.
>
That's backwards: Since the address block is ambiguous, routing *cannot* 
assure that if you reach a node it is the correct one.  Nobody can, 
because we equate addresses with identities.

Consider a  peer-to-peer conferencing session, with three participants 
A, B, and C.  A and B are at the same site; C is at a separate site; 
both sites use the same range of site-local addresses.  Each has two 
addresses, AG, BG, CG and AL, BL, CL (Global and Local).  A initiates 
the session by connecting to B and C (assume for the moment that this is 
not a problem).  B and C provide A with their addresses; to complete the 
mesh, A tells B to connect to C at CG or CL.  Now, B isn't going to 
connect to *both*, so it'll have some heuristic to pick one.  Suppose it 
picks CL (*).  But, whoops, B's site has some host D, with DL==CL.  So B 
winds up connecting to the wrong host, and doesn't realize it.

(*) Not an unreasonable supposition.  If the app is looking at the 
addresses, it might well notice that CL is on a locally attached subnet, 
and use that.  Or the app might connect to both in parallel 
(non-blocking connect()), and use the address it reaches first, as a 
first cut at discovering the most efficient path (that's what I did when 
I implemented this some time back).  Being on the same network, D will 
probably respond before C.

-- 
/============================================================\
|John Stracke      |jstracke@centive.com                     |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                   |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                  |
|============================================================|
|"God does not play games with His loyal servants." "Whoo-ee,|
|where have you *been*?" --_Good Omens_                      |
\============================================================/