IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] SADR for MHMP is useless yet

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 21 November 2022 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 56E70C14F73A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:56:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=employees.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZNE5KdzAljs for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:56:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vesa01.kjsl.com (vesa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:6::11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7771FC14F73F for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 05:56:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=employees.org; i=@employees.org; q=dns/txt; s=vesa202009; t=1669039014; x=1700575014; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date: message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=1Hnvq6faQo/s+h+3KdfX8FsZYvx4JGxuj9b3ytyG6QA=; b=ChsVQmVFvpfYk/5XbNXrppXkG6oIcNU5FQJpiPAs7/TfpHb6OYKZQgOZ Fb63D2ePqaDrLidSkPdY4Vx9hKlzaumLFiwVeCVB5CF5TmxI4zRi734wx M4QUzyUgoXB2GncPwHLRfsRxf+8zY0A9m/AH0c0CDi1U28AEKLUScfTvj 9VQOnupSSJtLtjuomw17/BT05bXgwQNlyvpt+zxWWVwIJBvlHZUmvGEZK m/GSjcR1vh0/VFoMyJC35jWeCsmeVQynYgrG4PtwUDsS9AGGN8uNZeNgX H8tKExTOVHp5/ICBkJHmZaG1UpgArDPquGMd44PZhmrKi5vvPmtwbV0Ln A==;
Received: from clarinet.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by vesa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2022 13:56:53 +0000
Received: from smtpclient.apple (ti0389q160-5811.bb.online.no [95.34.2.246]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94A634E11B0F; Mon, 21 Nov 2022 13:56:53 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-E9BA89DC-33F6-4281-A2C2-757F0A551C17"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:56:41 +0100
Message-Id: <FD9DBB7F-57EA-4739-A4FE-4927286777B1@employees.org>
References: <d4282b3fc917460b8e73ceb2554e88cc@huawei.com>
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <d4282b3fc917460b8e73ceb2554e88cc@huawei.com>
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20B101)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/1xX9CRis0YOzT4hJa7mMSfzrl9I>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] SADR for MHMP is useless yet
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 21 Nov 2022 13:56:58 -0000

Eduard,

What was discussed here was a topology with two independent border routers and a stub router attached to them, with a stub link southbound. 

The stub router has to, as far as I can tell, do SADR.
(Or other similar policy approaches to routing)

Do you see it differently?

O. 

> On 21 Nov 2022, at 14:32, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Ole,
>  
> SADR is not important yet. Maybe in the far future (5+) it would become important.
> It is useless for the PA case yet because it is not possible to come to this situation.
> How PA prefix would be split and distributed between many routers and links on the complex site?
> (something like HNCP or DHCP-PD). Automation here is mandatory, PA could be dynamic.
> The need for SADR would happen only after this.
>  
> SADR is not needed in principle for other use cases: PI, NAT+ULA, NPT+ULA. Normal destanation-based routing is enough.
>  
> Eduard
>  
> Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 18 November 2022 14:52 UTC
> 
> Ted,
>  
> There are a few reasons why MHMP have failed. 
>  
> 1) it requires SADR routing in the intermediate routers. SNAC routers in young case
> 2) It leaves the choice of egress path to the hosts. Expecting every host/application to be smart enough to handle that correctly especially given the hosts on a SNAC link sounds optimistic. 
> 3) Hosts selecting exit is often at odds with network policy.
>  
> PVDs doesn’t seem to be particularly important to the problem, but I don’t mind if you think it is.
> Great if you can make MHMP happen.
> It might be a distraction for this group and not necessarily something that can be limited to v6ops. 
>  
> Anyway, I think this is something for the chairs/ADs. 
> O. 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email