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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 21 November 2023 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 1E9C8C15154D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 07:32:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 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_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=employees.org
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 nzteJYHqaIsd for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 07:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (proxmox01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:6::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 360DCC14CE55 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 07:32:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proxmox01.kjsl.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9AD14E5FD9; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:32:25 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=employees.org; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:from:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=prox2023; bh=feBk4TUBQxXso6LA ibfs/5RNxIzm6rNmxbP4tH2bCNo=; b=pyIw4HcTkpvLeZOZYYf4AvD3Y/OJ+Vhl VnXEGAqlYXS4kaSOnVchDAcS2i/CaxM2soGWQO4MHqmwLZfWUn1jVNT0xY1gn+rM jbo8MoDRF3wugnXhJZ8osCpeOnYzKnwP4PzyYgGDu258bPpahwqofD8zEE/nO2YC K6j0zmzNEWAkcg24yXOGcfh5vVIMOnaE1IYmL6KslayZ+kaAylWCLvAdJ7yD+YKb kCxFC08cGv8IG3NwFvx/BPSwyIiOEnK+5T29zjwohLpc/sPpbH9ncvg0smzc9E+L pOluSb6mVS/OqmDVtWnxklWDWki3N/ATpbAQxStve5Oi77xeQ0AiZA==
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by proxmox01.kjsl.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 7ACFFE5FD6; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:32:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2001:4650:c3ed:37a:1e9f:54b:1ba9:d468]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B54804E11BB4; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 15:32:05 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.200.91.1.1\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1=uQkRFY3rtghVFt8-MHDsezYwHju9yQAsSeah_z7rt2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 16:31:53 +0100
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F64D03AB-855F-4215-965A-CE7D2AFBFA0D@employees.org>
References: <CAPt1N1kjd+m3KL-KCQY=2DWZrug=g8_zdtacF9Aja7dQ9zjnUQ@mail.gmail.com> <1BA9C21A-8EDC-4E69-8749-3C703CAB678B@employees.org> <CAPt1N1kFQpkkVNtk57_T3FTnVKhtqgm9Z6VGJDzOXo4KJvccSA@mail.gmail.com> <94FC0A0F-AD2C-4630-B509-2DAE57205B50@employees.org> <CAPt1N1mPNYBfM-RBGULo+mAf4cSqr5=4GsdAeL3_C5YyWNsSAA@mail.gmail.com> <68CFC1FB-E178-426F-B3B0-3234D4CA1F98@employees.org> <CAPt1N1=uQkRFY3rtghVFt8-MHDsezYwHju9yQAsSeah_z7rt2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.200.91.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/tRWjr0AmLc57nyj3W0J0bfnzXfE>
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 15:32:30 -0000

Ted,

> Honestly, it feels to me like we are converging on something that works, and you are tired of it and are therefore proposing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
> 
> It’s taken a long time to do this because the market pressure isn’t there, not because it’s impossible to do. 

It’s taken a long time for nothing to happen.
Nothing has continued to happen.

There are millions of IPv6 nodes deployed.
That’s not trivial to upgrade.

No, it’s not impossible to do. All the pieces to do it have been described for years.
But just like SHIM6, ILNP, end to end IPsec, Multicast, IP Mobility, that doesn’t guarantee success.

Don’t know what kind of Herculean effort would be required. Interops and bakeoffs, IPv6 ready testing program, lots of guidance to application developers, new socket abstractions…

The other multi-homing mechanisms gives better (for some definition of) multi-homing with none of the host changes required.

Cheers,
Ole