Re: multihoming, was IPv10

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 30 December 2016 01:58 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 16928128B37 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:58:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=l6fvlyhp; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=jNpxps85
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 qj0UPC1wZ-Tp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDA84127077 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 44829 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2016 01:58:52 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=af1c.5865bf5c.k1612; bh=I/jUStWV2irvdTrz+QKc63oDERuEIfmhYGDFdrq2U7w=; b=l6fvlyhpmpUtmpMR1/d17pP5Be/HswaQr1ANtmE7ojkDXyg3pl5U6CQqYGWnxYJZiLM4lCsAx7qid/ZlfI3EFXU1Kxby1Xb/G4jPeCeUC7OVIEb0FdRSPBOI9ezTxY3QFnDCqsmytxnzP4KA+sTZVyR69t1rSLviXnIUtFaN+SyoLiwTMZnFyhE4sAoocdvlLq6R1Xnaomzr2sBX96Tm+QIHeHXmmPfxhzrqZLxup/vnhksO7B5JNYpBqyNiTaKB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=af1c.5865bf5c.k1612; bh=I/jUStWV2irvdTrz+QKc63oDERuEIfmhYGDFdrq2U7w=; b=jNpxps85AiV6HumHpdSSiTuPk5jTDfhArjM3NeH+gf1IKdXD+wk7cPyxe/BS2BKY2I0AbNlT3C0VE772m6klgb5ZsFvhgYD0KrE/Jo/yIwZ8ujawgo0pebjRE+EJSjellLcehp85QLUJg1lCctsYq3k6SlRBvP1tQJFhLey8HxiUwl5qUnY33yIA2UTQMtZG1WE5uSvszDsbyK4v9mCgejSKnEji1pk5Cp/J7/kTtnnkbjTdQ6V65uJufiJmeiPb
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.0/X.509/SHA1) via TCP6; 30 Dec 2016 01:58:52 -0000
Date: 29 Dec 2016 20:58:46 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612292057480.38763@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
In-Reply-To: <20161230015709.EF91C5E15F13@rock.dv.isc.org>
References: <20161229162721.34651.qmail@ary.lan> <20161230015709.EF91C5E15F13@rock.dv.isc.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (OSX 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NiYb0oR7IdmwJkCd32E4wRyCJgI>
Cc: IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 01:58:49 -0000

>> This is a big reason why providers don't implement BCP38.  A customer
>> has one block of addresses from provider A and another from provider
>> B.  In general each provider only knows about its own address block,
>> but the traffic comes from both blocks, and the customers get rather
>> annoyed if a provider doesn't accept their traffic.  ("If you don't
>> want our $20K/month, we're sure we can find someone else who does.")
>> Trying to keep track of what customer has what block of someone else's
>> address space is hopeless, so they just turn off the filters for the
>> multihomed customers.
>
> BCP38 should be automatable at the edge even with multihoming.  We
> do have the technology to provide each customer with a CERT that
> says they have been assigned this block of addresses.

We do?  References, please, preferablyt with the commands I type into my 
router to automatically import and handle the certs.

R's,
John