IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-05 + homenet (notably multihoming)

Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> Thu, 24 April 2014 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EEB21A017B for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 a3KSMV4Ucfor for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jenni1.inet.fi (mta-out.inet.fi [195.156.147.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3001F1A0188 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 04:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kosame.lan (80.220.67.193) by jenni1.inet.fi (8.5.140.03) (authenticated as stenma-47) id 534D293000A97270; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:02:54 +0300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <033CEC61-EFCE-403E-BDF1-A306A19F8CEB@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:02:53 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4BD985AF-EBF1-4FFF-88ED-D2211CCD0807@iki.fi>
References: <DA35A826-938E-49EF-8E23-9242535B7538@iki.fi> <033CEC61-EFCE-403E-BDF1-A306A19F8CEB@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/dybRkRgUgacvKpSVHWHl4Hju1XA
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-05 + homenet (notably multihoming)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:03:07 -0000

On 24.4.2014, at 13.42, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:26 AM, Markus Stenberg <markus.stenberg@iki.fi> wrote:
>> I think the design could work at least given routing is moderately stable. Comments?
> That’s a pretty big "if".

In a homenet-ish IPv4 case, you have to have moderately stable routing, or you may flap between different CPEs. And bad things happen in that case given different NATs in each, even without PCP..

Cheers,

-Markus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email