Re: IPv6 Formal Anycast Addresses and Functional Anycast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-smith-6man-form-func-anycast-addresses-01.txt)

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Mon, 04 November 2019 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B056120025 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:59:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 3GAfzxETccB9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:59:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37484120019 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:59:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2CE548018; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:59:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 394A7440015; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:59:37 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:59:37 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 Formal Anycast Addresses and Functional Anycast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-smith-6man-form-func-anycast-addresses-01.txt)
Message-ID: <20191104185937.GO2287@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <157277906705.13535.345852921709779212.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAO42Z2wSU-puDaQq-PzTCTE=S3qyqUNrPhH0pgOEO_d3=StnHA@mail.gmail.com> <b97c15c0-b1fe-0d78-0897-5fc4bb6a9a34@foobar.org> <B42E6EED-5620-49BE-BB3D-B1CF6F04A1CC@gmail.com> <20191103212712.GK2287@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <B2A9EAB8-BF52-4302-BB77-70EE252F45E5@gmail.com> <20191103225223.GL2287@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <81f02a3b-fc37-348d-728e-78f33355a729@foobar.org> <20191104084301.GN2287@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <3798B338-B5FB-49A1-993B-D0AA66A41AE8@employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3798B338-B5FB-49A1-993B-D0AA66A41AE8@employees.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-xYv1-5gT8_q9OmRbmTT9dgX64I>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 18:59:45 -0000

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:24:24AM +0100, Ole Troan wrote:
> From an architectural point of view, changing addresses midflight, like what ayncast (does/could do) is just a mobility event or changing paths in a multi-homed network.

Agreed.

> We have tried solving these problems at the network layer with among others Mobile IP and SHIM6, and failed.

I thought thre are some good areas of adoption, but yes, there was less
adoption than hoped, but to me that not an architectural failure.

To me the adoption was just about loosing against the L2 competition in
many mobility services.

Or are there specific architectural failulres you see in how IPv6
mobility was done ?

> We need a session layer or a transport layer with it's own connection identifiers.

I don't think we need to reinvent a lot of endpoint functions for every 
transport protocol.

> As far as I'm concerned we have punted this problem to the transport area.

Well, the separation between IP and a good amount of end-to-end
transport functions is questionable, because of the resulting
re-invention of the wheel in transport layer. Alas, the IETF
had been quite incapable to drive more common functionality into
transport layer either with e.g.: failure to establish SPUD.

Cheers
    toerless

> Best regards,
> Ole