Re: draft-.*-6man-sadr-ra-00

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Thu, 05 March 2015 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8501A1B65 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:49:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 Te5ztCLqtjHM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (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 BC8671A1BF1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:43:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by labgm9 with SMTP id gm9so13040109lab.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:42:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=up6sYiljK239iNUR53kHj0V2PUCyIR1Y7TLk801UFtM=; b=g8gSOsWPVmVudqnULh61t5xhqaIHwWdJA2R2tXZNndRSOpAHjRaawynJxPkU0pz8Il VwHrLQjML7KH7V4hAsZRvdEmwwmR03fStWC/voHaSm5RXvpFvfc/XiieS/d+3s95wBgP i25/K8jJSll8C6QnblHhgC2iijeB8GU9tJTcfhTklsQoYACQsyifLGgDFck4Z2zo16qp gmm2wMtV5zg+6ovuvENuUgbtmQXe33PZiN/5PbixRIE07Ew/9tu+Z8RL1jjxlgRKltVt UKbuUYujUIV6l8a5AI7DRkI5Xz2x+skweCYFPn8NondmrrZCF/Zag0WidMrZ+NlrtTwj DSGA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.175.7 with SMTP id bw7mr8940368lbc.15.1425573779328; Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:42:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.24.135 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:42:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <06A6D197-55B9-4EB4-AA24-C1DAEE7B533D@employees.org>
References: <54F66566.2080501@gmail.com> <06A6D197-55B9-4EB4-AA24-C1DAEE7B533D@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 10:42:59 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcfdvnhfxBc1gSce0YnS25c=Fo55_4b_u0ToN-Qtcb9vYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-.*-6man-sadr-ra-00
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aaLmNqMowc5WC2P1QAdbwgdqeco>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:49:11 -0000

Hi Ole,

A quote from draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases:

An initial approach was suggested in [RFC3704], which
   assumed that a packet following a default route to an egress CPE
   Router might arrive at the wrong one, and need to be redirected to
   the right CPE Router.

 He goes on to say that SADR solutions are needed and that's what we
are saying at the host while Fred's draft is about what routers should
do.

I think the operators don't like ICMP messages because that's what is
used in DOS attacks.

Regarding Pierre's reply, I already have it in Section 5.1
draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-05.
We can add the redirect argument there as well, hopefully after it
becomes a WG draft :-)

Regards,

Behcet

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> If there's no consensus on the problem, I am quite certain there will
>> be no consensus on a solution.
>
> Let me give the problem description a try:
>
> A host is directly connected (single interface) to two border routers on the same link.
>  Assuming multiprefix multihoming and BCP38, the problem is, how can we ensure that the host has enough information to:
>
>     - given destination and next-hop can chose the correct source address (matching the border router PA assignment)
>     - given a source address and a destination chose the correct next-hop
>
> This is not a problem when a host is further away from the border routers (the network will do SADR).
> If the two border routers do SADR and exchange routing, then if host picks wrong next-hop, traffic will still be routed correctly. Otherwise a border router returns a destination unreachable ICMP with code source address failed ingress/egress policy.
>
> Anything more to this problem?
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>