Re: [IPv6] communicating multiple link (status) to hosts

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 21 March 2024 06:23 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 24378C14F736 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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=sandelman.ca
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 BTJ9NaLxuoNN for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F10DEC14F726 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (dhcp-8677.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.134.119]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 328591F4A8; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 06:23:45 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.b="GyyKIM4x"; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D40B7A0C69; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:23:41 +1000 (AEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1711002221; bh=FkzV/WOf6FrP+VaO5Tm0EhD6jzY2orbyGdou7Twt2II=; h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=GyyKIM4xNy8bCq+ytQPB7r6Vep6jduGly3Bf5GaObzo8R8dd6qJIPcanzsSuZA8T7 AK+v7SbhdsmTqJC3Qz4gD3Q2BlmnfDg5shRcC9Sk+Qq1GWi53ksWGZ15RtsgsgYn4X JLYjr9CHgrzVkDgjKOIkLhwOm32DZ1JbnFlUoU6kUpWrr8Nw9g9Vrc9R9rl449yQOZ ogf53kLbv7CcmL5AZgFLxSI6uIqPxh+ZHGr2HK2hhT+uwvRRTX1AOCoMogLqyGPc9g al+aJ4099mvtqWRJATx8pGuG0YdIip2khvnP7WcmQBqpwj09oZCMrULyI1SJRWdHjF ReAW+hEbUg9xg==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DC0A053B; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:23:41 +1000 (AEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAPt1N1kV12OG76CUNXm7AOrhdu+310E9BbaMJgKbw6Mw4=Ziew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <186314.1710989921@dyas> <CAPt1N1nJR31StrZaPGqbi7=P7vb2xyJF39p8YVdsgaExQVvMdQ@mail.gmail.com> <195905.1710999785@dyas> <CAPt1N1kV12OG76CUNXm7AOrhdu+310E9BbaMJgKbw6Mw4=Ziew@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> message dated "Thu, 21 Mar 2024 15:47:04 +1000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:23:41 +1000
Message-ID: <197937.1711002221@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/idsWazIJZvD7ViCKcxf2iUpE7TQ>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] communicating multiple link (status) to hosts
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 06:23:52 -0000

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
    > Hm. The way we generally handle this at the host level is to notice
    > icmp messages. On Apple devices if you use network framework it tracks
    > this stuff for you, at least for QUIC and TCP.

When doing HOMENET, we had this problem where devices which were not directly
connected to the primary infrastructure "LAN", where the two upstream CPEs
were, could not properly steer their traffic towards a specific CPE.

That was one of the major hurdles to doing two-provider, two-PA GUAs from a
host point of view.   I can see how ICMPs could tell you when the link has gone
down, but it's not clear to me that it helps for everything.

At this point I find myself muddled.

    > Unfortunately we don’t standardize APIs in the IETF these days…. :)

People repeat that rumour, but it's just not true.

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