IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.kr> Tue, 13 November 2012 08:45 UTC

Return-Path: <dykim6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1C021F8488 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:45:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 hbT-2yf+zyEw for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFC721F8470 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k19so3726905qcs.13 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:45:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=mcQSi/ihHEYqfDd69GATZIuTljFpCAHrvpGIgh8GQ+Q=; b=js7XSqpkr90Pp5yV8/k+KHy9Fq4wWgN1tcfZ3Oa/M9HoYVhfrv+lQp8gQAPAoac+cB FXiisTSTxLXbNSWqfYbF8Srp8R99DmrF5a6AV7nFoZPoLxY8uJZi5ed7Gb8g8pXqKE6Y C/SYOJ9sdE2VfMcZDSzI37/blwsEze6frhsOM3R6B2ucIWid1deEJwP5XJ9T/reMAH2n yyYlwetx8kr0TfWVor/hLgaToFKrfBrEVaUwh760Jm1kKWjZsNekcLiGhNEjPS4Rwa6A yUORncVteFvrjL6ViyMA8UT0reZXCX3iQdwxvTbbuj5oQzo7We/+xwcte0w3ShXfo94k KpHw==
Received: by 10.49.117.137 with SMTP id ke9mr27009703qeb.5.1352796347148; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:45:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dykim6@gmail.com
Received: by 10.49.12.9 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:45:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <EA48576E-4953-4408-982F-9D48497F8975@tony.li>
References: <20121112234012.05F8E18C0CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <CAFgODJcP1zvwRJukJdnqjSR-78XAMB1nSxL32gjUQB+NqpgESg@mail.gmail.com> <50A18F75.8060001@joelhalpern.com> <CAFgODJcDAzaYPrWFEJhgeCjnN_M9tdd+pdHTiccd=Dz=1mYrLg@mail.gmail.com> <EC8FD781-E416-4AE6-BA99-F74FE2DDA14D@tony.li> <CAFgODJfMBJBxNJ_M1_L=K0f2DpbZvzOBUgLZ6sT+-y+JevGeSg@mail.gmail.com> <27E72BC2-C84D-469F-9667-7A749567B477@tony.li> <CAFgODJfBX0R90oiYnxWrgC1oyr5ZPTZJA23WWu=Dbqu=xmyYTQ@mail.gmail.com> <EA48576E-4953-4408-982F-9D48497F8975@tony.li>
From: Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.kr>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:45:26 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: YdiJUNRGIcl9Vr7oCcv_ifgfOAw
Message-ID: <CAFgODJeae5EwSr8aC4b3tGBMxKPZRcfKarUuuwmA1LZKjge6ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b66efdfb9aa9504ce5c71c9"
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:45:52 -0000

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:

>
> > On one hand, having each hosts in a site deal with multiple PA prefixes
> won't be much fun.
>
>
> Fortunately, only the network administrator HAS to deal with the multiple
> prefixes, setting up one per provider.  After that, everything within the
> network can be automated.
>

Does this mean renumbering?

>
>
> > On the other, the same connection resilience could be achieved with some
> sort of session management function on top of TCP, without resorting to LIS.
>
>
> Absolutely true.  But then it might require application changes, which
> we'd like to avoid.  It would also not be intrinsic in the architecture.
>

Which architecture?

And no application change with ILNP? I thought there'd be application
changes with ILNP, although none with the routers. Apps should take only
the half of the IPv6 address as host ID, not the whole.

-- 
DY

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email