Re: multihoming, was IPv10

Brian E Carpenter <> Sat, 31 December 2016 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6EB129577 for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:21:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ywrvUo6DMWaL for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A69F11294C5 for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y62so136951838pgy.1 for <>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:20:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=aagvFIF6HbZ6WGRSemGA54RUZmraH9cVbxaz1VsWi6o=; b=KYoe3rjP0Yj3loHVIdrTE6Swh645w5n1aK59/wwpw2FQ1jMUmbemxXvZ8Riglj8Prq N27zbHTOGY8+aJ0AA8dBRn+4o68QlETdpcwLa+FsAh1WbeHa26loFqBf2RMg6B3kyHim IPUiJIq88yFqpNd4qQyN+DBzRw2ks6s6kVAavCenYQSYaqWOHPpYldZNckXh7e7Loxgc riRVfdWwoIb792g9+qcZH59FuyZyB8WxmS3s2GIKSGZHbP32xDyWKbDytJq7DVl9g0bZ 4OCU1uvuG8Oyg2EpwhPiz+u6eZjSIptxDhDn5tjYEdOm/pCpqM19X41vpjkzqO2h6Ij1 EgHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aagvFIF6HbZ6WGRSemGA54RUZmraH9cVbxaz1VsWi6o=; b=pdKWIXjl7ZeXcMPABGN/XyC2kl4Phu/R7HpXlh/f7FQMEL1p97vMXr+JV5+nT05TVY uKcX508QCBPLvONWjUc5TJUZcxWqXp7Xw+dFSfBOmkkvqISYIzPJZF/ep6F2q2q30Mww Zgh0vPSFv3uDwPlsXe1MwHEACxexesqqa/nfocBSOF+XZBNk8h4FXAYQfN9AwkwMBZHd YVlRea9iy8SEqFam6ipIbN+esmZbZnYNhuTIf30ArlmsMFTe2DLsIZVpjqHBvJz0O5hb szQe84iofS8CEL1xZDPM1PMwRFXVkVf831YU+n8wQOkNHXQNMjmSqS1ROcmBFooCMzq8 tXcw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIjGbbb27Q04CWWs9uwtr92OhXgv2pfTCMWmmzj86EMvDMADcCp/u/qc7DH15abHQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s185mr94451668pgb.35.1483212057754; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:20:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id 78sm57073904pfj.23.2016. for <> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
References: <20161230024719.36002.qmail@ary.lan> <> <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B845946D258@newserver.arneill-py.local> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 08:20:52 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 19:21:00 -0000

> 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. Shim6 has not suceeded, but misunderstanding the need for
timeouts and probes was not the reason. There is some further discussion of
this issue, with experimental and simulation results, in .

I have never found it very helpful to accuse discussion partners of stupidity.