IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

Ed Horley <ed@hexabuild.io> Thu, 21 March 2024 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ed@hexabuild.io>
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 5DDF9C151061 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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=hexabuild-io.20230601.gappssmtp.com
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 mYah8Hs5JLlh for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B304BC14F682 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2d220e39907so6417791fa.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hexabuild-io.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1710981968; x=1711586768; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=E7HveIEdMB4LFUt4QS3TghCYF7vUkD+OTsbhOnguMeU=; b=LvUYzD5vNHiTwlevznbtuFlIlc6CwWbysGRO/K3nlHwCphC4O2cFCcg1Y7P4Prlfs3 5qoL9RwWJDCxPjVIUYJJuBUCX5FAjVVIGtCczbf6+3PKcv8RyWBCohkaW+bYw0brrPxj juNmVYP8XMtDlrVSmJvh5ICqrMC9Jds0VVpDAXbNEibDzy2TbuYTuyqioxClpn6AA6Ni paWDxYupNHAYxzgKM1Q7MaNfC554ip6bxLymp5SUe7DqkLu1PWcz9/kLX37h9rXyWxyP G72Q40uYr+zeWS2aD1ljObI940ZvipeWwSH0lwZ8QKuIuxumwt69hkO7Kj0CGJ5JtclO 2s8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710981968; x=1711586768; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=E7HveIEdMB4LFUt4QS3TghCYF7vUkD+OTsbhOnguMeU=; b=LoCDTaioV9HVej/2onxhUeNfHfdgKpy0jyRoN1STn2qX+iUnzFQvemh6jLFjqpNoYz AsR8QujfbaXoElOoP+ATHU89HHZxwSyGY0klFLgRzf7uN9Kl1BI7h5+cmAUBWRxIQt5R OZH72QTs9mjHSxjy2oVKH7lbTuTrCaDdqJ6alA0AdxUB8sXkSkqFHY/3hAWewp2MM5Yn 4ImeucQHWZkJvWzSyuWyi2CnLP+LCX6CIYO7Ftyf1LAOFCb4KqlkclefGsqXOZn6m7Xz zUe1VcOwTZxsnzGIMs1bSSPJmLXO54LZsF8r4Pr9OGfyaZDsCP71cr0I3cZPwNQJWEdq 1mrA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVHXn1Koiw73LYiquXSjXBnRk4wBd/zOesxu9Hcoc9LrI1KYnaznmDG2HYwSbCxGk01uRmxZfp6wwumKBED
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yy9iU2DEzZZ2WEyuYOnnSFpbtihCS1B6SZmdFEyHLJBDtVOsUoM uLX+HQeBUdP+YGvjblbLlA46/BCW+ipy6tKrJJySmUDNCCrKlQwhs+Dk5b3twzFMIpiGZxP29OI NDtR3NadMMnstux08WUFiruMBwxoLEzWV9Ap8pQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGcIU4if0reybdFNct6PuWbUCT45dsXZ7BAxEwDQjQOr99/QPQJUxYAIBmQAsvj+mKv9Ov1zye/2qP3aOqn6RA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8811:0:b0:2d4:a8c6:7147 with SMTP id x17-20020a2e8811000000b002d4a8c67147mr8092818ljh.31.1710981968317; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:46:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAO42Z2zKMhBd_B8o_Qd93RaAdjceysyJ_i6TifVfSgaVuo_1yg@mail.gmail.com> <2B9CE2C0-E969-4DF6-B5AE-395CF5F69FAF@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0bo3VfEUb=M+o-OQf1fhdHfXMje0rnkwbxwGR_M65gNw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMGpriVEYmKNhuc=VoK27cWdzgYSQ9d9DGY5YURa2P-fW37_5Q@mail.gmail.com> <03abf5bf-45bd-9996-312a-acdcf62d816a@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <03abf5bf-45bd-9996-312a-acdcf62d816a@gmail.com>
From: Ed Horley <ed@hexabuild.io>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 17:45:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAE=N4xfFcEYokcoYcOMZMXe6paROETco6dwY9LFEr08xkf9eDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007070a4061421086d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/cwgFWSrEbxDWCdd8ylBw90ZUBVo>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:46:14 -0000

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 5:43 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21-Mar-24 12:38, Erik Kline wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:30 AM Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=
> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 6:17 AM Ole Trøan <otroan=
> 40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40employees.org@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> wrote:
> >
> >          > Another drawback of NPTv6 that occurred to Lorenzo and I
> yesterday during a conversation is that as hosts behind a single NPTv6 with
> redundant links, or behind multiple NPTv6s, will only have a single ULA
> address, the hosts won't know they could use multiple paths when using an
> MP transport protocol.
> >
> >         Definitely. With a network based multi-homing solution then the
> network chooses the path. Which one could say is what the network is
> designed to do. :-)
> >
> >
> >     And that's bad. The network does not have the capability to leverage
> multiple paths by using multipath protocols. Only the hosts do.
> >
> >     Hiding multihoming from the hosts using NPTv6 will prevent hosts
> from leveraging these protocols to improve bandwidth and resilience.
> >
> >     While MPTCP is difficult to deploy due to middleboxes, MP-QUIC does
> not have this problem, and interest in MP-QUIC is building. Even without
> MP-QUIC, even today QUIC already supports client-initiated session
> migration. That can be leveraged to maintain existing connections alive
> when one of the uplinks fails - the client can just migrate the connection
> to a new source address which will use a new uplink. If we hide the uplinks
> from the client using NPTv6, we cannot do that.
> >
> >
> > <no hats>+1</>
>
> All true, but still years in future for widespread deployment. NPTv6 is
> already in deployment. Shouldn't we at least make sure that it's well
> documented, including the applicability statement and the pros and cons?
> That's the document proposed for WG adoption.
>
>      Brian
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

+1 to Brian's point.



-- 
Ed Horley
ed@hexabuild.io | (925) 876-6604

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status