Re: [IPv6] RFC 6724 shouldn't prefer partial reachability over reachability

Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net> Tue, 21 November 2023 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <buraglio@forwardingplane.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 5D1CFC14CE38 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 06:37:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=forwardingplane.net
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 SXqVwcAMtlWc for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 06:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (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 7B17FC151097 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 06:37:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-42033328ad0so33284641cf.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 06:37:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=forwardingplane.net; s=google; t=1700577468; x=1701182268; 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=T45gmTAVYa/i2etGGfoZGPm0mFO8nXZMMcXCt49axQQ=; b=mgFUXGFo6okkBFljqKWZfnF2pcanGcFkByB0a3DNGCrWFlaEnqsd7TNhmMqt3CMQ1z f17+CEgwPvdf1NY+xSTlJi67INQb7PttkPlEHE2s9AdOsB7bHB++QM/Ugz0Xk2JN/8Ak +U0SFpwUiiVy1ziSfSV01MI8gLda1aUmI7Lho=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700577468; x=1701182268; 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=T45gmTAVYa/i2etGGfoZGPm0mFO8nXZMMcXCt49axQQ=; b=aZbTX8Q0NK7hgbTLdaJN8xMflMAMMOIH/84Uerdyep57mMMJHxWTiO2BU8bfs9vdGb FqyW51AmAgAH4gA/E9fJP+v/6+FgfsKfubFFXHa7WBqVCnBlnxuaE83jpU3WGNI3/qyq mvNBTFzgTAFAFwOEYU6bSlhQ7F80obRxVemRFJW8fKKI6bhRIK8N/CJ/GC6QX4Td7LAg zQNxH8GhhL/228L26ofB8LsPVXmd+wOLBWLsXYJNH3hT3kTN3nG4GUSOtnReZbR9AwD7 NwJ6Y00mTpEv6pVoNmlsPLFCuD767Uz+WcZXRQanUsIL0/7RttJX9GQAqEO3I5pB2CVI dJdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyg5qzvj5GV+xVjVlRjKj49ncs7cOyEFbqFI/kTFm0pqmm9VGyR B37mT9TAlOOBAdw9ynu6NWZmuT8aqAKkXbUeOEHrOQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE7z5kPMOQypa0Okp7TSYLmi7wKxJJoveRaYqB/116FBK31o2KD0Pspivw6dEYxV6OT6fISqB21fLsR/shaUmg=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7ef2:0:b0:423:70d1:78cb with SMTP id r18-20020ac87ef2000000b0042370d178cbmr1832736qtc.57.1700577468458; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 06:37:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKD1Yr2uD+XE+HA6vs3BfEchpWr5H2NEeoXLrXm7-U9_ckw1sA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau2Nw21wUm-mjxq3bnYczPJbApVhcZZ6oie+HiB4yvr_PQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1z2x8iKXYQtPVifj-XkP7MeRq=NWe0gdWBGC1aS_j0Mg@mail.gmail.com> <CACMsEX8f_qmpZ898vKLy_56Jy1WKEju94fYEz5fuV4Pc3iJ=tw@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1tZa0W=617hQrgYYqmUbfgFp7EhmvgqKzaBvF=r=5FuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUOjrO5FPPXTCNeA-9YuSPT7SmGkiM82DGiMacyfntV6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau0FP31h3s+Fzbam7GJg-rNGsX3m8Hx3k=+895NT0a4iqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=_BmOZNvOc00qdhS84REnr-thBFgrjcixsEc=+jMSOfg@mail.gmail.com> <CAN-Dau1A4=5Q6mckZ35T_Gs1ty=zSAYUOS+1-nw1rAD2eH+o9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2yU+uHDP-xi_D6tCA45UmSiCQ2bZSUe38edEWs5o_YCeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2YW-ZeyooT6tzmjoE2WJAcUcohf2C6CMj3e41J8XaLvQ@mail.gmail.com> <4106220.1700174829@dyas> <8031DEBD-BC22-480E-91FF-8F9EC1EDC2A7@employees.org> <4124157.1700231123@dyas> <17E321B1-B65C-4761-96C1-D69598AB9D53@tiesel.net> <CACMsEX9RiUDKWL+47GaxQ9Q36bBjMqiTgJ16Ob+5FPbGAxNozQ@mail.gmail.com> <AFDEB5DE-8C15-4A3E-B79D-C686925CF6A3@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <AFDEB5DE-8C15-4A3E-B79D-C686925CF6A3@employees.org>
From: Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:37:37 -0600
Message-ID: <CACMsEX_-m_SpYQ+kk2kgcu0gzfCsAoE62hCMxUXEBrNNqsG3NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "Philipp S. Tiesel" <philipp@tiesel.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ebbcb7060aaa8b83"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/nh-JZ0vvTfLIccHB24-6_wfAuJ8>
Subject: Re: [IPv6] RFC 6724 shouldn't prefer partial reachability over reachability
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: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:37:53 -0000

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 5:45 AM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> > The more I think about it, the more I am thinking that it may be a
> deployable solution for multihoming, with all of the details in appropriate
> stages of hand waving.
>
> The more I think about it, the less I think it is deployable.
>
> MHMP:
> - Rule 5.5 support in all hosts (which as Lorenzo alluded to is
> complicated)
> - Application changes to handle failover
> - No multi-homing policy available to the network
> - Only works when hosts are directly connected to exit routers. _Any_
> other topology requires routers to do SADR or SADR like behaviour
>
> I don’t see any realistic way where MHMP can be made deployable.


Ugh. I had tunnel vision and wasn’t considering upstream routers in my
desire to have something simple(ish). Dang, that sucked all of the wind out
of my sails.

>
>
> I’d rather we focus on the multi-homing mechanisms that could work.
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>
>
>
>