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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 21 November 2023 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 2D606C151545 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:19:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.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 Q331ELXAUprD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:19:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb36.google.com (mail-yb1-xb36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b36]) (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 63D73C14CE38 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:19:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb36.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-d9cbba16084so5273374276.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:19:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1700583552; x=1701188352; 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=hHNQmf+l9qw4VbdhHdpXxAxdMARMkiCc2jUJMPp3mso=; b=ndZYj/nlPOJtvk9LC7pM2veMNdx312cZnXwOTwMDLZNE9M5obtjndaccXgNicWIxNd U7h5gMCr3jF9cqY83AQFP5gmD2LbUCNqcULKB7BxtqALds0OM5lw7R/h+uOawqc7QYz8 36JQBfbKTYdQMB52YLbe5Y2vSifySCxqwk47BF5IYn3NHPbZ0puC/IcaZmTr/x0N3UYe xc6oRoFa51GH70u0UI94W1kT2Az5KVdSjKm/Rq81JelBrrZZhzBcODPlx3a10NefJdBk 0AjIG3yZtHLpTFTHoWyOh4KUSeNchFN9+HPBOUsbRkJfnUYqZue9RfZC5wc6joHG6F/q uL4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1700583552; x=1701188352; 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=hHNQmf+l9qw4VbdhHdpXxAxdMARMkiCc2jUJMPp3mso=; b=N1IodACu8bDXeIh8p5WUqOTS2yPHRnmHybMbpGCGntROIDKgTRys4yObFSgNQDqV9X BjJKqVGK3+/xaLXbAv2x3LIrJCWoEgyMgmQeYtVSzqqJr04t5aBj4cU+blavf6oNeWJ0 hshLUf0sOH7KqnL/iQR3sgYHLq3hLffke3NGLOE9t0CBiCmSXWNukUeIRqI5IOS2ZM0N jPAeL8ouwJUXqXnmHedocQfxQp6H7HL6l/NW20i3OAGTfPZdFN6TQV3uRIkZO5faG8+E yU8O4H79aPyviaqOkHNyjGGr7eupt8bbcEX2ZXuveW+Sw7V+w8tVEWDOlzqkEcUr8QGq SZIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxFakZDXxyOt8NgnQIHVNi+/V3t/dm9kewQl9gNyGwjUal8R1HF f5kvgmSI6TxkIKyjU7KsEqxHsNwNF6RPMUjfxkOSqA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEBRPWpgKERvdxCcOD++wBOwgA9O4ybqaPovlqxMhBaJ8PQGLSLpJgn6HcRS0QzI6fIaME8vLUN5SEWg6QWNK4=
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:a06:0:b0:d9a:ce53:4942 with SMTP id k6-20020a5b0a06000000b00d9ace534942mr11616860ybq.0.1700583552123; Tue, 21 Nov 2023 08:19:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <F64D03AB-855F-4215-965A-CE7D2AFBFA0D@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <F64D03AB-855F-4215-965A-CE7D2AFBFA0D@employees.org>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 11:18:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1mXJ6tdvEG9EsTDYxpPHTR3FH74Hp7nUnjQM8j2T3pPcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Nick Buraglio <buraglio@forwardingplane.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000891c34060aabf6f5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/wSfIqd4VxK6hgTQlGsO_ttNbqCM>
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 16:19:19 -0000

Indeed. And nobody is stopping anyone from offering it—I think we know how
to do it. So I don't see a real issue here—we don't actually have to pick.
What I'm reacting to is the apparent assertion that we shouldn't try to
improve IPv6 stacks—that e.g. implementing rule 5.5 correctly is pointless.
I don't agree with that.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:32 AM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>