Re: multihoming, was IPv10

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Fri, 30 December 2016 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 8047A129622 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:20:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] 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 U8jzXl2nEKgm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:20:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 969E0129635 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Dec 2016 14:20:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 73071 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2016 22:23:04 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 30 Dec 2016 22:23:04 -0000
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20161230024719.36002.qmail@ary.lan> <7401a840-590e-28c3-2c3f-1e4b46c34e29@gmail.com> <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B845946D258@newserver.arneill-py.local>
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <685eee97-795a-6705-52a5-19707d529975@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 07:20:31 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B845946D258@newserver.arneill-py.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lsK3iC76Ntsa3ez_UhRoFQ-6-80>
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 22:20:40 -0000

Michel Py wrote:

>> Brian E Carpenter wrote :
>> Which is exactly why we have to make multi-prefix multihoming work out of the box. Which is why we
>> have RFC 7157 and RFC 8028 and draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing, and we're not done yet.
>
> We have missed the delivery date by 14 years.

I wrote:

	https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00

in April 2000 and I know it is stupid to use source routing for
multihoming. So, never deliver it.

All we need is transport/application layer capability to treat
multiple source and destination addresses and implementations
of such TCP has been available since 2003 or so, more than 14
years ago.

							Masataka Ohta