Re: multihoming, was IPv10

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Sat, 31 December 2016 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
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 71B4512949F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 04:22:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ROtuR6T9vqWl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 04:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x232.google.com (mail-wm0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD888129460 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 04:22:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x232.google.com with SMTP id c85so152016225wmi.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 04:22:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1ZqFUK18yCkqprUSsTYfdPbGjXg83NLFqm2Cry52+NM=; b=qIuz07bUjRzmw91X5lvwTTw+gxkXymJgfTMa4ViHoEok1+7s4+OZlXE8RS2PjvqMfa oROh/vDY3xBLEdZs19RIGTmW9kd9MkkFjxA8VJp98A1+ETIaaTSjxlhG85bwKE+/u91u BmY1agmX1o0fbMr2kRBs45sEtmEq+cKchzFOQ/f+tIzK4AFJ5beNAR5iMHqAuqVthNTY JG3+gBoHUnZcsD/VOeQRknmKjSNZhOZy/FUWokFdcxpVlOUkrt1tRyFKnvi7xa0M/0z6 NhfhL8wuGJmaetzUhTAZLTn34hNnXWdFg7jt7ZpIgr/bIOUqtulKkhzrQCbgz5uQA1du RpRQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=1ZqFUK18yCkqprUSsTYfdPbGjXg83NLFqm2Cry52+NM=; b=etXvB1r2A8cy9QL77+U2Jd6fuJh0h8HxTOgYoIY2gVHDw8rEQgxiUFX8Cb4rQCjeQj qlzOh8pQH7PXsAY35Aos1vZGTFjujlf0CLSK+39ov4Bf/jCCa+4Lv5VKQT3xx5cmKmrW Drr//JLzRHh5l0EFFZ82UdwZFHIvmk/kSDemgvMYFBTZOWq9Qej9T+vDuGvsCuwWZkY+ eltJdMe+YiuW0oB52FEn5ftpZib0A/B64jTuxVAkzTD3iw1kP2ozHB0mF5UKYVSTvmaH PD2DNsSt7LRQQIt/9/GzSCDVbBHLReVM8lm588XEaWIrvFSXHroFxpasI8HV7Lfl+6AM wgLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLvf3GHMh0DiV2EFWomg4UY6x8UnlZjfXuU8tdaOKggD8ASHcoR9b9p5wL4vGSmaw==
X-Received: by 10.28.109.29 with SMTP id i29mr35580066wmc.124.1483186932853; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 04:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.126] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w8sm74360722wmw.4.2016.12.31.04.22.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 31 Dec 2016 04:22:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
To: Octavio Alvarez <octalietf@alvarezp.org>, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, 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>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4fb9a182-8291-5356-bace-8f2de9e446f2@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:22:10 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a9b31b76-21cc-de14-e217-6916f3677597@alvarezp.org>
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/DIfuYXyRcgOFcMcab_vL3uFEojQ>
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 12:22:16 -0000


On 31/12/2016 07:54, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
> On 12/30/2016 02:20 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00
>>
>> in April 2000 and I know it is stupid to use source routing for
>> multihoming.
> Is source routing bad in general or is it bad only in multihoming scenarios?
>
> Thanks.
>

When called segment routing it is accepted as a useful technology for  
well defined problems of this type.

- Stewart