Re: multihoming, was IPv10

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 31 December 2016 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@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 D2844128AB0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:37:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 c4FC6STpszkp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x241.google.com (mail-it0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::241]) (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 AACAB129455 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x241.google.com with SMTP id n68so44764563itn.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:37:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IrFJIMr6uUMctJWcrNBxaDA8N9X23rDurBgVHXvTcck=; b=X3eEPh30Rg0WcS0rgXogA+/PqRNFWd8IW8XiqACcACOYxC/wt3+IgELgiGsy3JrPyw va4RUAgm4chrcxAk8UaL8sinB6uNCapwz9PDZmAVYEFHzNNAmvfqeYRPAgO3Xy8cfpF0 flipg2XRT0G6+Sy7sPZjTLMqiX1dgC79CBu28x+Aet5g3abVh/7y7v6HxFRRLEqGQKk5 hy31cYNE/V7E09xLyFJlcZNLQ8tWkXtgUV8u3c1QJfcp48gFGQUy83fly+WWxt6EXhwX JDePdbuZ7gNN9GwmK0AldcU+F88ynH7dMFN2OcEcCLMsdSAruwube5cgo6YRygJq3aJf qpHQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id :thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=IrFJIMr6uUMctJWcrNBxaDA8N9X23rDurBgVHXvTcck=; b=PwO1fr/TPmPjYjAPeQUp6C651OhnrbJz+zltew27PmLhOsGCebhiQErva9pTvhTBF4 Pu9oolNRSi7XCaKcC+hNsNHygSxxJYr5MCDJ6HF3MAUsokPB088sSVT6iYeF/N2A1Gni qg/RyvoDcYeqz6FBL+EkoajmQ/NQea1oRbbaCYztqeqoEveliK+UpfJ4lIJFmmZvWYij iasedLuhHby8tCfdBBGPUsOS1WjE0qa3N0L5dZwHNfctLoMr6cS1j/VkMC9Gxv8rdHdX lbxdG9iAtaSLjcrtlIYvzihRfvVzTnjdQYupM5ZzBgn5CHsWFauUFpMfC3iBMbAuWzSh qhRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLLJt2+tWkWuE36mH5n04SDba16cnANGsboTXstIV+27+cJaax9PGSUU5Vuvbz9nQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.203.66 with SMTP id u63mr45955954itg.111.1483220276662; Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.107] (66-189-255-235.dhcp.reno.nv.charter.com. [66.189.255.235]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y125sm27891383ity.13.2016.12.31.13.37.55 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:37:55 -0800 (PST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1d.0.161209
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:37:53 -0800
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, Octavio Alvarez <octalietf@alvarezp.org>, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <6E20B141-E102-4947-B6DF-707DBF2D3117@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: multihoming, was IPv10
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>
In-Reply-To: <4fb9a182-8291-5356-bace-8f2de9e446f2@gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wgKXwkMSVESNssXH4zH5sUknKoU>
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: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 21:37:59 -0000

Segment Routing is as much source routing as RSVP-TE would be, there’s no per hop SA lookup, but rather per FEC (that could be a SA) at the ingress.
Ability to abstract next hop into higher layer, locally resolvable entity (adj-sid -> node->sid -> anycast-sid -> etc) provides a rather viable from a network design and implementation way to have end2end networking while utilizing local state.
 
Cheers,
Jeff
 

On 12/31/16, 04:22, "ietf on behalf of Stewart Bryant" <ietf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; wrote:

    
    
    On 31/12/2016 07:54, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
    > On 12/30/2016 02:20 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
    >
    >> 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.
    > Is source routing bad in general or is it bad only in multihoming scenarios?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    
    When called segment routing it is accepted as a useful technology for  
    well defined problems of this type.
    
    - Stewart