IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Tue, 11 November 2014 05:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3E41ACDC6 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:43:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.973
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.973 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 2GHNkqcRLHy1 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22d.google.com (mail-qc0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960321ACD85 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x3so6859985qcv.4 for <mif@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:43:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=5FbUgrBQLs9kCobTGwY1ecoGKfq5yZorRsudYP+j0Eo=; b=DNtxt4Vp0uBIfEv3i9zFy1GeTTnCnzUmox5m1EEtqWoMGy3PpL5lqJ01SdGjRKafwo WT17BkYc3Z/87SQaa4br/TZ3+p2rk88PFjQHpAtWkTBj4DSTaVD91qUsQejW7od8er5/ mysv1enEIQvHm5nGnnVcDwEgBmAr2hEdIke4mYEY2vZkg1F4/vSiOafhd04QoA+zQEjC 68tmm1k5xWbAv3Y4Yy2TvQ3cSgy01jXStMsQGYDgrYzLI7SIPNYUNwKTKcd8UFOsapev ddVYIlyOvg8BCj+wGPE42pfXfLdZK/dUGV+3jaFenCgagQY+ayznquVFrRiZM5iYeEDx wEdw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=5FbUgrBQLs9kCobTGwY1ecoGKfq5yZorRsudYP+j0Eo=; b=jCIp46l3fNb+ImeNWxwy6d7Z4W9vbQT+2FPAlE7TCwHgCcvHkDhAC77GPZQ+fMYb9m a5mEKx5UOCCHEBVYLoJcqyH1VUnsQCocUtZxXnsavv4CUYGj99qu0n24rnu7BWagIpH3 NVMmOfDUF7wn2I+seoC/PPcIBwwjOJAMhdoSlaTRL1CurpQoXEhLA1vL4yRuYTXjroiV 5ZLpuC16OpI1vQeAcKkszrFxQq6+dvqocpEu2Us7s3cwa4QpGcvdw3KqYssDWvrrq4tV aoFkGvVScy+lKUQxf4Vk570Xy2Tb75w/pjibGjf646Re/0GXCmyXAbaMY/plzhm2AJSc xKbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnNUIWoKANQh8sULFl8XawOO7IEdMJ7sU1wyLTSWfo4VcWwn4Nz9e5SXR/+J2ZmkzaeX1hc
X-Received: by 10.229.115.7 with SMTP id g7mr50014960qcq.2.1415684625728; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:43:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.247.196 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:43:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <8C1BB9C8-4F4E-4316-8ADA-8F8633EC40E9@gmail.com>
References: <01FE63842C181246BBE4CF183BD159B449037ECA@nkgeml504-mbx.china.huawei.com> <D0765101.175805%sgundave@cisco.com> <005401cff509$3719eb30$a54dc190$@com> <D0869CBD.177FDF%sgundave@cisco.com> <1BC71728-94D7-48A3-B01D-0645DF8314F3@yegin.org> <8C1BB9C8-4F4E-4316-8ADA-8F8633EC40E9@gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 19:43:25 -1000
Message-ID: <CAAedzxrxiRgnupvNXSasCP-CBszBngP4zZjD8w78SLVEwVS16A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/5jloZ6r0oo60Z2XHsqaHq6zbHaM
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:12:40 -0800
Cc: "mif@ietf.org List" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] Hybrid Access Problem
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 05:43:48 -0000

> (1.1) Hosts behind the single gateway have separate addresses on the two
> attached networks.  In that case, the gateway is constrained to send packets
> over the outgoing network that uses the address prefix that matches the
> source address, or the packets will be thrown away by ingress filters on the
> other side.  So, the network choice is made by the hosts.

I'm not sure this a given.  If both networks are run by the same
operator, it's entirely possible that there might not be any BCP38
internally. (...maybe even desirable?...)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email