Re: multihoming, was IPv10
"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 30 December 2016 05:12 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 2D9DD129522 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:12:05 -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=GfpQLLtz; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=JE3E/vOU
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 I-HUFYEqO0en for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:12:04 -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 EB0A51294D5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 77676 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2016 05:12:08 -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=12f6b.5865eca8.k1612; bh=bkyhs9LuUO4APGDb1jom+3DYWja2ntZ6QMZYgSqz3FY=; b=GfpQLLtz7yo49UaS/mwaRiTln+j2T4UlZQwr8labt/lAq0OXF6uItg71eIkAw/yqTrzlbtLTtbRExxOJQ3tw99CUp6oHrlsymlK0X2ycbJsqCJ15WzxbbbVCz0gJfu8V2tsk7SXtAnSwqlTRY9hscaJeX/dnIENLu7lRliQNNpxzrn5pMo2kK0JCXMgs0Tdc7W8FR0ermMpQmOX60iwGCu2OSSe/ArST6F9Xv1m8uEpZ7XU3o8vCUvFWiPPyoMY4
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=12f6b.5865eca8.k1612; bh=bkyhs9LuUO4APGDb1jom+3DYWja2ntZ6QMZYgSqz3FY=; b=JE3E/vOU0rWoiYMW7/Z43WlfkNZq+RhOTQxyQQq54mCKiqK9BVXXQhTMt7TiVnPefGs1qOFkcp6ftEmlRsJV0P2OkQlFVB8s5I9xhlE9SbPKmb3oydsyDD6cwUnaK+hH37GdZ7yfcT0Abdj4hzAhIt1h4ustFMEgzplP1nwvKfmPyndj0gYL1ji/dmxsX+ZdQVop0fn5HQRmWNQT/5wX+EWmh9EtW734P0TX0cH+1M+hCg/7SdpLDPfeRotVVsWs
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 05:12:08 -0000
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:12:02 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.11.1612300009470.39850@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
In-Reply-To: <0AF4F0A30512B3CB651C72F7@PSB>
References: <20161229162721.34651.qmail@ary.lan> <0AF4F0A30512B3CB651C72F7@PSB>
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/oVFtXSaADqAqZcuLReqsbCWqTNs>
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 05:12:05 -0000
> I said and meant "traditional type of > multihoming" and, more important in the previous sentence, "many > hosts and sites that are multihomed in the traditional sense of > advertising one set of endpoint addresses to the network and > letting the routing system sort things out". That is, very > specifically, one address per host, advertised to multiple ISPs/ > networks/ paths and not "a chunk of PA IPv4 addresses from each > upstream". But it's the same thing -- the customer numbers some of their network with PA addresses from one provider and part of it with PA addresses from the other. Then the customer sends out traffic from both address blocks to both interfaces, and the upstreams can't tell whether an unknown address is a legit one from another provider or a malicious spoof. I'm pretty sure this is right, having talked to ISPs about it in the context of why BCP38 is harder than you'd think. R's, John
- IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt… Khaled Omar
- RE: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Khaled Omar
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Leonir Hoxha
- RE: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Tony Hain
- Re IPv6 adoption (Was Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix… Steve Crocker
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… David Conrad
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… John C Klensin
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- The demand for IPv4 addresses (was: IPv10) S Moonesamy
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… S Moonesamy
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Lee Howard
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… John C Klensin
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 (fwd) Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- RE: multihoming, was IPv10 Michel Py
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John C Klensin
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10 shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… heasley
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Patrik Fältström
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Octavio Alvarez
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Stewart Bryant
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… David Farmer
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Jeff Tantsura
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Masataka Ohta
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00… Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Randy Bush
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Brian E Carpenter
- Re: why v6 still isn't ready, was IPv10 Randy Bush