IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 03 February 2011 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D5E3A657C; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:47:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yt5lbB6-SS55; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A44F3A6452; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.252] (pen.isi.edu [128.9.160.252]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p131nwnc015989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Feb 2011 17:49:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D4A09C6.7080009@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:49:58 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02
References: <4D48B4EA.20503@isi.edu> <4D490FED.6060303@gont.com.ar> <4D4996AE.8060302@isi.edu> <4D49FF33.7030107@gont.com.ar> <4D4A0017.6050401@isi.edu> <4D4A03CE.9020105@gont.com.ar>
In-Reply-To: <4D4A03CE.9020105@gont.com.ar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MailScanner-ID: p131nwnc015989
X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org" <tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues@tools.ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, TSV Dir <tsv-dir@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 01:47:04 -0000

On 2/2/2011 5:24 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 02/02/2011 10:08 p.m., Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> On 2/2/2011 5:04 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> ...
>>>> At the least, it's worth noting that geolocation is already broken by
>>>> tunnels, and that IP addressing does not ensure geographic proximity
>>>> before attributing breakage on NATs or other sharing.
>>>
>>> Tunnels need not break geo-location. -- They do not masquerade the
>>> source address. Or am I missing something?
>>
>> When I tunnel using an ISI address, whomever sees my address thinks I'm
>> in California.
> [..]
>
> Ok.. I see. I was thinking about tunnels in the infrastructure. -- those
> are transparent in this respect.

Yes. It's tunnels at the endpoints I'm using as an example here.

Joe

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email