Re: multihoming, was IPv10
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sat, 31 December 2016 23:35 UTC
Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317351295CD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:35:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] 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 CDaQdrcP4mqG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:35:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A6FA3129489 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:35:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 95094 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2016 23:37:40 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 31 Dec 2016 23:37:40 -0000
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20161230024719.36002.qmail@ary.lan> <7401a840-590e-28c3-2c3f-1e4b46c34e29@gmail.com> <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B845946D258@newserver.arneill-py.local> <685eee97-795a-6705-52a5-19707d529975@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <a9b31b76-21cc-de14-e217-6916f3677597@alvarezp.org> <84be74e9-0e25-cbbb-4f6f-6cb21c28e7ea@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <f6a87169-6b0a-6887-4973-ecc589267026@gmail.com>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <029d8895-ebe3-2be9-03d3-361679578da0@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 08:35:13 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f6a87169-6b0a-6887-4973-ecc589267026@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/AR5-h4fhejZSXc17YP7jBrgL2aM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 23:35:17 -0000
Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Anyway, multi6 WG utterly failed because most of the members (including >> chairs) failed to understand that *TIMELY* multihoming needs notions >> of timeout > > No doubt that is why shim6, the direct result of multi6, includes probes, a > keepalive timeout and discussion of what to do if failure occurs even during > context creation. That's the stupidity. At the connectionless IP layer, never try to create a context, a connection. That's no different from poor NAT guessing validity of TCP connection through timeout. The guess can not be complete, correct or *TIMELY*. Moreover, as a connection at a higher layer already has proper mechanisms for the timeout, providing an incomplete and incorrect alternative somewhere else is totally useless. According to the end to end argument: The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the end points of the communication system. the knowledge and help is not available at the IP layer but is already available at higher layers. > I have never found it very helpful to accuse discussion partners of > stupidity. It isn't, unless shim6 members can recognize the collective stupidity of the WG. But, that is not my problem. Masataka Ohta
- IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt… Khaled Omar
- RE: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Khaled Omar
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Leonir Hoxha
- RE: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Tony Hain
- Re IPv6 adoption (Was Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix… Steve Crocker
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… David Conrad
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… John C Klensin
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- The demand for IPv4 addresses (was: IPv10) S Moonesamy
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… S Moonesamy
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Lee Howard
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… John C Klensin
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: multihoming, was IPv10 Michel Py
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John C Klensin
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… heasley
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Octavio Alvarez
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Stewart Bryant
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… David Farmer
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Jeff Tantsura
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Randy Bush