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

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Fri, 17 June 2011 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.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 170C79E805C; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.544
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 CRtDe9lU7QX4; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3FC9E808C; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:00:29 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.289.8; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:00:28 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.165]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:00:28 -0700
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: Joshua Shire <jshire@hyduke.com>, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] IETF80 questions regarding "On demand IPv4 address provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment" - Topic for WG?
Thread-Index: AQHMLRJl9qcFCAZHV0a5gvbXuIaqHpTCQ/mA//+jTkA=
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 19:00:28 +0000
Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B10F936@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> <BANLkTi=m7T5qx8iDUfVP3gJ1JrpkkMDuUZNWAxYZQi=9SD+7wQ@mail.gmail.com> <5D359AE112816C46AE85C0494190F973027FCF92@hydsrv6.hyduke.net>
In-Reply-To: <5D359AE112816C46AE85C0494190F973027FCF92@hydsrv6.hyduke.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 19:00:44 -0000

Requiring the CPE to be a gateway rather than a host running arbitrary applications
is one way to restrict directly connected nodes to a specific set of pre-tested applications.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Shire [mailto:jshire@hyduke.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:31 AM
> To: Cameron Byrne; Dave Thaler
> Cc: pppext@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] IETF80 questions regarding "On demand IPv4 address
> provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment" - Topic for WG?
> 
> I'll second this. Most of the new SMB level gateway devices we're seeing on the
> market support some type of USB connected 3G/HSPA dial-on demand system
> as a backup link. We've implemented it quite extensively with little to no
> problems.
> 
> Josh
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: int-area-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Cameron Byrne
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:17 AM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Cc: pppext@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IETF80 questions regarding "On demand IPv4 address
> provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment" - Topic for WG?
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area