Re: 64share v2

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 11 November 2020 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 5CC263A0D3B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 04:44:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 W2-suGxisEBa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 04:44:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E7313A0BA9 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 04:44:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id A5A5AB1; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:44:12 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1605098652; bh=i2o2itLByq6nFiUOdJZGMuNE0vAebCYtxvFoR/sWTsk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=t139bRllDOZjRNDo/NDCz10Wn47JwEVgMAnPMXdtPA84HqeP/1b90gH043gHK6Wkx maIsoEIOzIObtwNTci0LG6FDLY4lKwYSMntkAZMEcAF4ebBQT8zQlusuklZIghxkWN poN10t7M69CcZE+YfxYt1eR0M+qoxYxk/VKM9k8I=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A187CB0; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:44:12 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 13:44:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>
cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 64share v2
In-Reply-To: <m1kcp60-0000KgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011111341230.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <CAD6AjGR-NE_sJ_jp7nAT6OvNkcdE9qoWuGEiiVW7r9YtsQvbbw@mail.gmail.com> <CC7C2B94-5A05-4682-8367-9072CC201C49@employees.org> <80ed3a3b-6e2c-188f-4c1e-c2ededfbbe0d@joelhalpern.com> <0188AC41-60B0-4BC6-810D-DC59CF9E4FB3@employees.org> <1931a638-64ed-f40e-07a3-67cf1eafb941@joelhalpern.com> <376D6BB0-87E2-42E5-9BC4-F3A2F04FA005@employees.org> <CAD6AjGSr-TPcGo7f9EGgoAahYLQTL68CUSq58LGMgD0=6GmRRg@mail.gmail.com> <8DC674FB-9F90-4C41-A323-62BD62934A12@employees.org> <CAD6AjGTYBs8YbHgCJJG84vgwXK4ZSCm65z6KXvZP9F+LdT_atg@mail.gmail.com> <038A830C-E024-42C6-917E-E6FF57829A1C@employees.or g> <CAD6AjGTQVtJBJ3=aZBsF1WcdSK2k9b1hzeZXM6008w_2vpo6_w@mail.gmail.com> <948ACA2B-E45C-4289-A837-9F2536F20F8F@employees.org> <CAKD1Yr0tDTSH2F4=ZsdMJREy1k6equ9mZV0Au1bJPmKuzxeYVA@mail.gmail.com> <43C449AD-D116-4452-A4F2-79AE5A76539F@employees.org> <m1kcoXQ-0000G1C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.2011111248460.15604@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1kcp60-0000KgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/w9W0AU9HROG3BYcqVVISf4L2AcM>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:44:16 -0000

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020, Philip Homburg wrote:

>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health-05
>>
>> This actually tries to figure out if an address/prefix works, and if
>> not, act.
>
> I appreciate what the draft is trying to do but I don't like the mechanisms.
> BFD seems to be a complex protocol. Maybe it possible to strip it down
> to a BFD-lite that just does a simple echo.

BFD is probably a no-go, yes. We've kind of moved away from that.

> Section 3.4. is a layering violation so that may make it tricky to implement
> it. But worse, it requires router to reflex packets back to the same link
> they came from. This usually a recipe for routing loops.

Why is 3.4 a layering violation?

> Just thinking out loud, if I want to verify that my local address works,
> why not send an ICMP ECHO request to the router?

You mean use DHCPv6-PD derived GUA address and ping the LLA address of the 
upstream router?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se