IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Generic anycast addresses...

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 04 June 2019 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 EB7BB1200A4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 17:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 Y8R-dBauppdc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 17:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [209.87.249.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01AE3120086 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 17:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:56b2:3ff:fe0b:d84]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40011380BE; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 20:49:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id AFE5A16A5; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 20:50:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD654CA1; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 20:50:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
cc: 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Generic anycast addresses...
In-Reply-To: <3d99d907-669e-46db-e68b-0a1bdf4a1f89@huitema.net>
References: <1DD451A7-D898-4105-974C-53776A3DA9F2@fugue.com> <20190530152902.l2nmyhadr4e4kt7x@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <0FF19D6D-1A45-41EF-BE34-CC35B5E51E1E@steffann.nl> <D91629F6-73AC-4A80-80EF-16644F73DA36@fugue.com> <701687d4-842c-6a16-3c97-349125324e3f@gmail.com> <D648647D-60E1-4DCE-B0BE-11002E0AE5A4@fugue.com> <25631.1559317738@localhost> <CAO42Z2x9iTrbvZuCxqSpDX-CQ9MtY8V1yyb-hg+XYtXXYn7LKg@mail.gmail.com> <9021.1559397908@localhost> <CAO42Z2xDUYOZqQ2_gjApifaPO3uG-kzjHpzND3nBD=hzw1TW2A@mail.gmail.com> <20190602130300.ebqbmvhb47r7pdog@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAO42Z2z9JkczxvYb09d4Fp7O17nnd0RHjPGnTaG26RPxPVa+Xw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1906030910010.19892@uplift.swm.pp.se> <19028.1559573360@localhost> <3d99d907-669e-46db-e68b-0a1bdf4a1f89@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 20:50:25 -0400
Message-ID: <18638.1559609425@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Gq6v8cqFh-msQGnkh8lMNJT-rw0>
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: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:50:30 -0000

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:
    >> Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
    >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-6man-form-func-anycast-addresses-00
    >>
    >> > I have now read RFC1546 and now I understand some of the confusion. Did the
    >> > concept of "send SYN to anycast address and get SYN-ACK back from actual
    >> > unicast address" ever get implemented anywhere?
    >>
    >> I don't think so.
    >> Maybe some BSD 4.0 could support it, but it would be fly in the face of most
    >> firewalls.  It would rely only on the sequence number to match things up.
    >> That would be pretty weak, particularly at the time RFC1546 was published!

    > There is support for this kind of behavior in QUIC with the "preferred
    > address" transport parameter, although it is quite different from what
    > is stated in RFC1546. From the spec, "QUIC allows servers to accept
    > connections on one IP address and attempt to transfer these connections
    > to a more preferred address shortly after the handshake. This is

That's really cool.
It's just sad that we have to do it at layer 6 rather than layer 3 :-(

It's nice that we finally have a layer-5 security layer that seems to
becoming ubiquitous.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email