Re: [Int-area] e2e Address transparency - PI site routing - Multi-CPE multihoming

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Alberto,

Thank you for this interesting reference I hadn't noticed.

It did share the objective of combining of "PI site routing" with "Multi-CPE multihoming", but was NOT concerned with "e2e address transparency".

Besides:  
- It needed a middle-box between all hosts and CPE's
- It needed a new DNS RR type.
Both have to be avoided in the solution I look for.

Kind regards,
RD



Le 12 janv. 2011 à 11:52, Alberto García a écrit :

> Hi,
> The requirements you state remind me the Proxy Shim6 proposal
> (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bagnulo-pshim6-02.txt). There is also a
> paper on the subject at
> http://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/10016/2846/1/P-SHIM6.pdf
> The abstract of the paper says:
> "The P-SHIM6 architecture provides ISP independence to IPv6 sites without
> compromising scalability.

> This architecture is based on a middle-box, the
> P-SHIM6, which manages the SHIM6 protocol exchange on behalf of the nodes of
> a site, which are configured  with provider independent addresses. Incoming
> and outgoing packets are processed by the P-SHIM6 box, which can assign
> different locators to a given communication, either when it is started, or
> dynamically after the communication has been established. As a consequence,
> changes required for provider portability are minimized, and fine-grained
> Traffic Engineering can be enforced at the P-SHIM6 box, in addition to the
> fault tolerance support provided by SHIM6."
> 
> Regards,
> Alberto
> 
> |  -----Mensaje original-----
> |  De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En
> |  nombre de Rémi Després
> |  Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de enero de 2011 11:19
> |  Para: Brian E Carpenter
> |  CC: Internet Area
> |  Asunto: [Int-area] e2e Address transparency - PI site routing - Multi-CPE
> |  multihoming
> |  
> |  Brian,
> |  
> |  Here is a good opportunity to clarify an important point, on which I hope
> we
> |  can converge.
> |  
> |  The problem I worked on is how to combine:
> |  - "e2e address transparency" (hosts know their own global addresses, and
> |  use them)
> |  - "PI site routing"  (e.g., in IPv6, ULA-only intra-site routing to avoid
> |  renumbering problems)
> |  - "Multi-CPE Multihoming" (the most complete multihoming model).
> |  - "Per-site incremental deployment" (a site can use the solution
> |  independently from what is done anywhere else).
> |  
> |  - LISP is off-scope because it doesn't permit per-site incremental
> |  deployment.
> |  
> |  This problem has two complementary sub-problems:
> |  . "Source-address selection" (how does a host select a particular e2e
> source
> |  address for an outgoing packet)?
> |  . "Outgoing-CPE control" (the source address being selected, how to
> ensure
> |  that the packet goes via the right CPE)?
> |  - Solutions for "source-address selection" do exist (SHIM6, SCTP,
> draft-ietf-
> |  v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66).
> |  - AFAIK, a solution for "outgoing-CPE control" in the above context still
> has
> |  to be specified
> |  
> |  The key I briefly described for this "outgoing-CPE selection", in sec 3.3
> of
> |  draft-despres-softwire-sam-01), is that:
> |  - For customer-site traversal, hosts encapsulate e2e packets in local
> packets
> |  (IPv6/IPv6).
> |  - Hosts address these local packets to the right CPE's by using a
> |  correspondence list between local CPE addresses and global IPv6 prefixes.
> |  
> |  Unless this is proved to be useless, I plan to pursue in this direction,
> with
> |  whoever is interested in making positive contributions.
> |  
> |  Best regards,
> |  RD
> |  
> |  
> |  
> |  Le 11 janv. 2011 à 21:30, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> |  >> ... it should be more useful to look for solutions that combine
> provider
> |  independence with address transparency, than accepting without effort to
> |  sacrifice address transparency for provider independence.
> |  >
> |  > Indeed; we already have one of those standardised, which also has the
> |  > property of protecting BGP4 scalability: RFC 5533, RFC 5534 and RFC
> 5535.
> |  
> |  (RFC 5533 and RFC 5534 are about SHIM6, and RFC 5535 is about securing
> |  multihoming address sets. None of these addresses the "outgoing-CPE
> |  control" issue).
> |  
> |  
> |  _______________________________________________
> |  Int-area mailing list
> |  [e-mail]
> |  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>