Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 08 August 2012 07:52 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 F182321F86C9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.481
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.481 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vlxkWf8fJg0N for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C70521F86B7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 00:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so106607eaa.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oJMDfvgVBQLXKMThugbvIcXpqDle9a76nPnN2mtWRDA=; b=DsdjbwdrTk+U06CeX6xSeZ7RZ786cox8H51q5os0gK3N+hl9kFbw2XCCXKtMOc4BHv lQhlwF/BlySUS32ToXNNthNXK1yirOuXa+NGahp1gYeTtdwaImJopBPKb695YnLUd+Ym lDM8o9nmza4lwvvldu0ZsxNzCHUOQl8A0WSSOpdTmMtP3ikU41rw3lPuzxF9pg/JEQUd nhKPAUZgZ276zxgPhphQPgYVBMN2bnpABwMvo+eMRCCX2h03NvkYd3i2PAWCrDdNXEiv JCyUk+bEt8uB47A7r2W97UdJm2c0KIlO95ERN0lekQPpzZejjx41NRb00sjGTPCFJjsf mOuw==
Received: by 10.14.204.72 with SMTP id g48mr21105828eeo.45.1344412347468; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-217-169.as13285.net. [2.102.217.169]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k41sm62282642eep.13.2012.08.08.00.52.25 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <50221ABA.4020306@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:52:26 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Subject: Re: ITU-T Dubai Meeting
References: <20120808051929.717981A12D@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <5021F98A.9000509@dougbarton.us>
In-Reply-To: <5021F98A.9000509@dougbarton.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 07:52:29 -0000

On 08/08/2012 06:30, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/07/2012 10:19 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
>> Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> In message <5021742A.70804@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes:
>>>> On 08/07/2012 00:46, Martin Rex wrote:
>>>>> IPv6 PA prefixes result in that awkward renumbering.
>>>>> Avoiding the renumbering implies provider independent
>>>>> network prefix.
>>>> ULA on the inside + https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296
>>> If you are changing your external connection you may as well just use
>>> ULA + PA.  The DNS needs to be updated in either case, the firewall needs
>>> to be updated in either case.
>> And what about running apps and network connections in the connected state?
> 
> If they are connected external to your network then obviously they would
> have to be restarted ... but then you know that already. :)

And any mission-critical application that can't survive a disconnect and
reconnect is badly broken anyway. I've never understood why session survival
was so highly rated; this has vastly complicated every discussion of
multihoming for many years.

    Brian

> 
> If "PI everywhere" were a feasible strategy at this time, I'd be first
> in line. But it isn't, so I think it's worthwhile discussing how we can
> do what we _can_ do, best.
> 
>