Re: multihoming, was IPv10

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 31 December 2016 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 20FB2129593 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:46:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 tJjyQ1097a6p for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg0-x232.google.com (mail-pg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::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 D7EB41294A1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg0-x232.google.com with SMTP id y62so137085796pgy.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:46:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kzAnDWbtZhAUF9R4culX2Q8BPQOYoJy5gvqOr3r3knY=; b=SMPJnaQQm8KtJVZKgOW866Uoqay3fLTzUawx75+zJogEO8fxlXiPxLIjxnpqEESWs1 n9lRWwqeWID7zO1tcebJGjWhIDIFMG03BIS35bEFx9jsM51Co0370GE7gYBiTLUa+CXV r6rsfDnRwL2hyU/Ki1UUpN8afovfTN4CexbxETIUsjfJhbb44OjRGS+NOzlcb/EWP/4h YxZ8vXJv226xX7SlbSFKpNdYNSEH4oAVSgRB5t/mWLqERGD7o/dI2yqQyYOGcgB+h5Is arT25/milEaycsuRoWvQMqOA67+t7y62YO8VHiFDLU8kOnD2STUelQ8YBMAKnbgRL+J0 O6tg==
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:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kzAnDWbtZhAUF9R4culX2Q8BPQOYoJy5gvqOr3r3knY=; b=Xcb42o+wItNPBtyl9q0jHLQQa5qzNgAlmbVnFMDpdMGJau9ie3u924oh/0frCdCJCQ FlmBO26rVYSJL7stsgbK8tSaWPAD+/mqdSPMgOBGgi5wnzuNi6odSWN9yjW1hKCQ/cuh NsAtbSbjuM8BApvqi6w4uUxKIwzGbE7+qTp9XQP6n2lUDuUEnTxhi8ic98qEghDSJ6GM oaZ0IPnznJJCQajpAxEmpHf12AI809S1UhGFDPGNOahDYno7MidlBToF6umj2N8FbBmV i6DfWJp7rr1rsXTniegpHlJeT6zKHVOUDfytT8etEDOI1jEE4oZoI0lGzW2dp3+jwhb2 e7sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIjvKVP7gpWN82MgcwzORCIIoPe0PbUBzIemUm1wWRuPbKP6NLaNukOq4kycmbkhA==
X-Received: by 10.99.121.69 with SMTP id u66mr93290231pgc.96.1483213579963; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.27] ([118.148.113.232]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q190sm81463119pfb.51.2016.12.31.11.46.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 31 Dec 2016 11:46:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Octavio Alvarez <octalietf@alvarezp.org>, 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> <4fb9a182-8291-5356-bace-8f2de9e446f2@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <cdd8dd4a-3376-981e-296f-744b86ca267f@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 08:46:15 +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: <4fb9a182-8291-5356-bace-8f2de9e446f2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LTkmKQKfGoFCHRwUhzMWK6jR5eM>
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 19:46:22 -0000

On 01/01/2017 01:22, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> 
> On 31/12/2016 07:54, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
...
>> 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.

Please be careful with terminology, though. In the multihoming context, we aren't
talking about source routes set by the host. We're talking about source-address
based routing implemented by the routers; there is no source route in the packet.
That's why it's usually abbreviated as SADR.

In segment routing, there is a source route in the packet. Different animal.

     Brian