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

Joshua Shire <jshire@hyduke.com> Fri, 17 June 2011 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jshire@hyduke.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 76A5911E807B; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
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 Ogngu-WZC5d5; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hyduke.net (mail.hyduke.net [67.226.164.185]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D09111E8071; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from HYDSRV6.hyduke.net (192.168.10.44) by nsk1mx02.hyduke.net (192.168.10.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.436.0; Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:26:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:31:27 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Message-ID: <5D359AE112816C46AE85C0494190F973027FCF92@hydsrv6.hyduke.net>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=m7T5qx8iDUfVP3gJ1JrpkkMDuUZNWAxYZQi=9SD+7wQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Int-area] IETF80 questions regarding "On demand IPv4 address provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment" - Topic for WG?
Thread-Index: AcwtEmd4PNcU6b92RuKvm2cDC6jKKwAAZfcg
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>
From: Joshua Shire <jshire@hyduke.com>
To: "Cameron Byrne" <cb.list6@gmail.com>, "Dave Thaler" <dthaler@microsoft.com>
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.4125-6.500.1024-18204.004
X-TM-AS-Result: No--18.339600-4.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:25:46 -0700
Cc: pppext@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 17:31:30 -0000

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