Re: multihoming, was IPv10

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sun, 01 January 2017 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 4E757129638 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 20:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 e4HrUeM4SQmU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 20:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 68EA7129604 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 20:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cNY03-0000kL-7k; Sun, 01 Jan 2017 04:44:03 +0000
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 13:44:01 +0900
Message-ID: <m2wpef2xv2.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
In-Reply-To: <cdd8dd4a-3376-981e-296f-744b86ca267f@gmail.com>
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> <cdd8dd4a-3376-981e-296f-744b86ca267f@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_x0CyLnwbTgNDtrxf5ZLUg1e32U>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <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: Sun, 01 Jan 2017 04:44:05 -0000

> 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.

Lebrun, Aubry, and Bonaventure have a great paper "Realising SDN without
per-flow state in enterprise networks" using ipv6 segment routing to
provide controlled paths, exits, etc.  i can't find it on the net of a
thousand lies, so it may not have been published yet.

randy