Re: Why do we need to go with 128 bits address space ?
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Wed, 21 August 2019 20:12 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 3F4991201DE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:12:29 -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=unavailable 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 hbN1TlfcheIn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82e.google.com (mail-qt1-x82e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (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 0EB7812011C for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82e.google.com with SMTP id j15so4599948qtl.13 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:12:26 -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=df7Kyiq9TAM7jJQ8T3leDgg2phnwfC+i77y84ZfZPHA=; b=KAWa2/S1qtZHPivyey3Tqsd6eA+LSR2MtVXReWRCKQ/M5+2SDQscqtuStfOCgQqbbJ jHBGiRsGZkvnGibArBljLKT7Pns8QhdNVWAkdhl54lBXCo1HL1wwh7gYcwvYCbyG9Aic 5Pc17nXYz9+RBrvjaxBd8ZmvWvZ4fiX7oVJDSqNbiPAa96Bt1GGV38f3tnEJ2767phCI XqHuVaGTWXNJ3+wC8y8YzntZaGcnnNcCzN0joOF0fav2p1Bk/zTQ9ZMS9Yi4XpPTuQ3K PEV80/+eM/+QpNlCu9fy4/dbiPENJ9EGK3XGLvGkUwYwbOW9OLAH8bMIx8NXTtHMCF/m sJDA==
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=df7Kyiq9TAM7jJQ8T3leDgg2phnwfC+i77y84ZfZPHA=; b=iblgjEPk+JG6Y12W4S3RUstMch2DlbCOlKkfvmoa2iIO5rgLZ+VvXQPKuv0/CECfi2 1CUNxhVyrfXHHJVSE/KHVrAmYhzMFDBF/YjPJtDp5xVzfQt1/fvY6WuE07SHg3effD5Z lMPeWAdcU1a6LSFbPTTCwdR4Hz4X6aJ/jmb4vdnIvNYRhsr36wDhqK824G0lkJa5jC/p MKBx+NNjj9doJMpluENZhbFv4NUDjgg7v6NXS79g3M+b86/RC8YqE9SUV5cmNQN8zoiT kYOg3S0LW1VaMewrwrPfNxCBgsBrWfxYJh5y5yfLfc5qTicbtKRWdkTeAi3DzuY4DqYH bFlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXVu/i+M8d3dUpP/42zYiIPk7gUYeKMYDumeBpRRUnCvLHuUvUx urH5SBLTNU0+0sDHxb05EJft1STNQtS8Y8GezI/xdkWTDIs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwB+42RBtrwI9vh2LdCTsbl2TEw0C573LCzd4YG2xlUlUURhPm6FmndF2AOT6A93I8T/SWSZx/pzS1A9RSZLK0=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7696:: with SMTP id g22mr32612449qtr.208.1566418344910; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:12:24 -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>
In-Reply-To: <df102b3b-d337-8852-c5dc-f7aa4f479d77@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 22:12:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CAOj+MMHsHQPisxiJCLb4bB_nLy_W1y3YkAtYCXFJT5r00uKbVQ@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="00000000000004b2950590a6319e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/YTQGVmZQIOPpJ9Mj7Po6SQwpKAA>
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 20:12:29 -0000
> 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. They all assure you that you can reach the destination ... without any assurance that you will get lowest jitter, lowest rtt, lowest loss etc ... 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. The point is that the sweet spot to make an educated choice is the edge of your network when your upstream ASes are attached to. Sure having addresses of various upstreams PAs space on the hosts + applying src+dst based routing in your domain makes it possible to attempt to choose which way to go at the hosts itself. But one needs to ask himself: *A* is this right architecture to run identical active & passive probing from 1000s of my servers to destinations customers may be coming from if all the traffic needs to traverse few ASBRs anyway ? *B* now assume you still think *A* is the way to go are we going to apply multiple interfaces to each VM and each docker container too such that those autonomous computing entities will again start to select their own view of the optimal exit path ? Many thx, R. PS. As an additional reference take a look at Google's Espresso or Facebook's Edge Fabric or Cisco's PFR. Those are the solutions I think make most sense when it comes to assuring customers get best experience for services from a given network. And I don't think any of those work in concert with end to end multi homing principle. On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:56 PM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Robert Raszuk wrote: > > > *"Instead, APIs and applications must be modified to detect and react > > against the loss of connection."* > > > > Well it is clear that you are making an implicit assumption that quality > of > > the available paths is equal and all you need to care about is end to end > > connectivity/reachability. > > No, as is written in draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-03.txt: > > Once a full routing table is available on all the end systems, it is > easy for the end systems try all the destination addresses, from the > most and to the least favorable ones, based on the routing metric. > > 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. > > One may still be allowed, though discouraged, to have local > configuration with dumb end systems and an intelligent proxy. But, > such configuration should be implemented with a protocol for purely > local use without damaging the global protocol. > > IGP metric is used as route preference, though, some workaround > of proxy (last paragraph) or having partial routing table on > near ISPs (not mentioned in the draft) may be necessary, until > global routing table becomes small enough to be able to be > held by ordinary hosts. > > Note that at the time the draft was written, IPv6 global routing > table was small, which means, at that time, IPv6 worth deploying > despite all the flaws in it. > > 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