Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 21 August 2019 21:16 UTC
Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
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 2A7DE120090 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=raszuk.net
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 kj-kF-o3o1Bg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x731.google.com (mail-qk1-x731.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) (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 DA37512002F for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id m10so3210928qkk.1 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raszuk.net; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UvQ2x0Uwr56YrpY0RirKT0WUkfU8tliNsFL2YUIOf10=; b=DBR5co9ru7UmclF1fUOIPkGYGpbw+a+hrLp5+c9+qIM1ZryQ+D8nIBKRu3I4+BA9Mp pZsBfZExlnQrSFhLfPu3ji41j0Otu+r1MgIKC4/g/3i1Bj848cigtqOYXp7WtfFGHgnI W9Uv9QYbSoRzHr75kAPyDmHj5MLKq1dePhF+zSZTcw4p67I9OLNJaeR5MXt4QNByMehi 17WIjPXsxgMJePrUrnT1mzrCwE5RaPKaptr9RfC+6/8k7KSJTurcG7nKibpyzp2iKDsj NmOTIBGMGpmH7jeTEvJLIXY4+XrMiAS1WIjGEqte/doTxPbWjWAcOzFSZ+B9zKUdS0iF 1FKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UvQ2x0Uwr56YrpY0RirKT0WUkfU8tliNsFL2YUIOf10=; b=aCcXc+ymoEftHYnWSlzrYCQVle8taMDLrUNVgBZJBdbSWlWEftP1NSj8IYwi8N8yXg fXXVUyBVnflGrf8ddLjcbFFA7cTbI5Chfywoo/WQc781dCYfw7cDVBe03XGqq3YrQ03E NrOXPXNnli8bRxMktphU8wXqoofhktcnF46ffchd3N6YbIS4JGIhXVwtvZxrdx/C4ODF 4xwSc5+MF5SLzxYYDMnUuxCClRND+ueNID4iTDkS3DiaLVHrP1wihfM7nRJ/RtfA93Es MkaZRQXbW51uGiuvghg0CdWMPN9M2KX5TwA5hIXUIndOMOlJSnueDZs1U4i6l3hnByA3 eQlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVklgzcFI2eG1DkQC8e1+ScLin6PTjAySqFgDs2MKJ7Epf9SUej b7he/2sphCA5wPHWLRRr+4iOCfLZN/2ey/SviyTUf5tkAcQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxG3fGTNjJ60ToWW5IPxXUJbRfridWVxPOFO135NdXfdez4tQTKJFuJAZIzhGdN2FjSXCVL2ikI3KGcmkq8uuA=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4f41:: with SMTP id d62mr32030866qkb.302.1566422169859; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPTMOt+cGhBqHmT3yZVChv-PCMqxT-WPDcDdM3RuTc1TMfFeVg@mail.gmail.com> <4278D47A901B3041A737953BAA078ADE148C2FE4@DGGEML532-MBX.china.huawei.com> <10708d7b-a4bc-f9d8-a644-7c5617f5ebf3@gont.com.ar> <CAPTMOtLyiUpi4L+7TpLePvm=JtpEnw-Yv1NCKvO63_HK2jFnCA@mail.gmail.com> <447e5dae-2ae9-b9fe-baa2-111c028d3b68@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAOj+MMH=wb+v137TvQkZ+KxaBobA8qYmvoHkFzEgi9-PP-Lqxg@mail.gmail.com> <df102b3b-d337-8852-c5dc-f7aa4f479d77@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <CAOj+MMHsHQPisxiJCLb4bB_nLy_W1y3YkAtYCXFJT5r00uKbVQ@mail.gmail.com> <ffa5248f-4fb3-32d2-1ec4-aeb9621c0787@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <ffa5248f-4fb3-32d2-1ec4-aeb9621c0787@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 23:15:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHde82V-eZ78iPq8L52WCFOZWbF7-mSM19Q24FxXZz6Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "irtf-discuss@irtf.org" <irtf-discuss@irtf.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000000cd130590a715fa"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YRgsGnEvgv_0mg60d8lgphMl-XM>
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: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 21:16:14 -0000
> That you configure your BGP poorly To configure exit path selection such that you take optimal exit to destination X vs destination Y you need mechanism to either passively or actively measure it. The entire point I am trying to make here is that sweet spot for such measurements is the edge of the network and not on each host, VM, container etc .... > proper IGP metric may be given by proper policy based on such knowledge If you are proposing to redistribute BGP into IGP and apply proper metric to each dst route then I think we already differ a little bit in a perspective how to construct a network. Of course even if I would carry selective destinations in IGP with properly mapped metrics how would host learn about it when it has to pick the src address from N available in end to end multi homing principle ? Is the assumption again that hosts, VMs, LXCs participate now in the IGP ? And even if it would be a passive IGP listener how do you encode in any IGP today which src address should be selected such that packets will not be dropped due to uRPF check by the upstream provider ? Many thx, RR. On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 10:59 PM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Robert Raszuk wrote: > > >> IGP metric is used as route preference, > > > > And that's the issue. Neither IGP metric nor BGP path attributes today > > reflect reality of true network paths. > > I'm afraid you are not familiar with BGP policy, where you don't have > to blindly rely on path attributes. > > > When I look at my BGP table in NY I get path to Europe via Seattle just > > because such path has 1 AS less in the AS-PATH and neglect the fact that > > there is alternative path just next to it with +1 AS but shorter RTT of > 150 > > ms. > > That you configure your BGP poorly does not mean others can't have > better policy to favor the alternative path. > > As is written in the draft: > > Note that end to end multihoming works with the separation between > inter domain BGP and intra domain routing protocols, if BGP routers, > based on domain policy, assign external routes preference values > (metric) of intra domain routing protocols. > > proper IGP metric may be given by proper policy based on such knowledge > (not carried by BGP) as "with +1 AS but shorter RTT of 150ms". > > Masataka Ohta >
- Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ? shyam bandyopadhyay
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Mark Smith
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Roland Bless
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Brian Carpenter
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Roland Bless
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Sam Kerner
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Lixia Zhang
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Mark Allman
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Nico Williams
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fernando Gont
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Tom Herbert
- RE: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Chengli (Cheng Li)
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Roland Bless
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Fernando Gont
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Mark Smith
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Musa Stephen Honlue
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Masataka Ohta
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Mark Smith
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Michael
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… John Levine
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fernando Gont
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Simon Hobson
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Sander Steffann
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fred Baker
- Re: [irtf-discuss] Why do we need to go with 128 … John Wroclawski
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Fred Baker
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Robert Raszuk
- Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address sp… Masataka Ohta