Re: [MBONED] draft-zhou-mboned-multrans-path-optimization

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Fri, 23 March 2012 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <stig@venaas.com>
X-Original-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D69F21F8584 for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zy1DarZObSJL for <mboned@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8B321F8499 for <mboned@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.33.12.81] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A17578010; Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:54:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4F6CAAC7.3050204@venaas.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:54:31 -0700
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
References: <CB9128A6.1E5B5%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB9128A6.1E5B5%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "mboned@ietf.org" <mboned@ietf.org>, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [MBONED] draft-zhou-mboned-multrans-path-optimization
X-BeenThere: mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>, <mailto:mboned-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:54:36 -0000

One thing that perhaps worries me here, is that I think you
may end up translating multiple times between IPv4 and IPv6,
even if no translation is necessary.

I don't think you should simply compare metrics for IPv4 and IPv6 and
choose what is best. Or at least, there should be some additional cost
for the translation that is added to the metric. Doing translation adds
delay (and I would think jitter). Then there is also the issue of load
on the translator.

Stig