Re: [Pppext] [Int-area] IETF80 questions regarding "On demand IPv4 address provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment" - Topic for WG?

Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 17 June 2011 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pppext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29CD921F8542; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N3aribSTuEuQ; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0854921F8538; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb29 with SMTP id 29so2186809wyb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Bn/gk4qc+BD9ZYIUs/1OJ9miIu+CjrPnPHJpT6lTYI0=; b=nee9ePQLH0Ou069uxAgHJtwR/x6lgcs44I2CkXt0bwxTZIstAvCjaWW6cQ3cvwQlKJ PbfhVF3Kh1j4Us2ubAKvSSaRE8hKOZlAXYCM30DnYI5KY//9zHVxn/xvVlpDU++6qAbC TeJzNzik9KYcFDdy3bkVXMFXKCxcdOnnHBr4s=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=mFinJa5G9KiqnVpGZUaiznawpxNLEaIdtVLy2E+HorxGMezafqTrnKK5IQqAZ6MsJA COdcORF1rKFnK5f1Th6Py4u5wkhJmxxHikCL6a0JoqK7ugSzE1K7Yl58lrVura5rjiKJ 5OIeEdZ26bkP6t7D7I65QOpl+kswNjUsb6rq0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.217.6.197 with SMTP id y47mr2408192wes.55.1308331028018; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.165.82 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B10EE86@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D08AD4AB8F3@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <03348BD8-3004-4DE2-978A-0952765B5F86@townsley.net> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B10EE86@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:17:07 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=m7T5qx8iDUfVP3gJ1JrpkkMDuUZNWAxYZQi=9SD+7wQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:25:46 -0700
Cc: "pppext@ietf.org" <pppext@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pppext] [Int-area] IETF80 questions regarding "On demand IPv4 address provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment" - Topic for WG?
X-BeenThere: pppext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PPP Extensions <pppext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pppext>
List-Post: <mailto:pppext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext>, <mailto:pppext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:17:10 -0000

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Mark Townsley wrote:
> [...]
>> Applications may not be all that forgiving to IPv4 coming and going either, e.g.,
>> I have a popular mail client that has recently taken to crashing when I switch
>> from wired to wireless and get a different IP address in the process. Some of
>> the IM connections I keep up recover quickly to IP changes, others do not. The
>> IETF has a whole WG (DNA) dedicated to this tricky behavior of an IP address
>> coming and going - it's not always easy, in particular when the link-layer is not
>> giving your IP stack any up/down notification, which I believe by definition is
>> what your proposal requires from the very start.
> [...]
>
> I'll second the above.   This is very problematic for some applications.
> (Other solutions like DSTM that have on-demand IP addresses have this same issue.)
>
> So any network that deploys such a solution in anything other than
> a tightly controlled environment where directly connected nodes are restricted
> to a specific set of pre-tested applications, will likely result in many support calls.
>

Is this really different from the dial-on-demand routing that has
existed for years and still exist as  common backup connectivity
technique?

I assume that this would be implemented on an Home Gateway which
provides consistent addressing to IPv4 hosts within the home, and
dial-on-demand type mechanism request the IPv4 address to the home
gateway to do NAT44 in the event of an IPv4 stream arrives.


Cameron