Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu> Tue, 04 December 2012 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <swb@internet2.edu>
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 C00CE21F8CA1 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:20:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 JZrPBwSGqki9 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from int-proxy01.merit.edu (int-proxy01.merit.edu [207.75.116.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6759421F8CA6 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by int-proxy01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F8E100007; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:20:28 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at int-proxy01.merit.edu
Received: from int-proxy01.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (int-proxy01.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l-mlCVF2gb73; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:20:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from swbi2mbp.local (cpe-67-241-75-185.twcny.res.rr.com [67.241.75.185]) by int-proxy01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 078B9100001; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:20:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <50BE3EEB.20700@internet2.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 13:20:27 -0500
From: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
Organization: Internet2
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Li <tony.li@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> <09cc01cdc173$71323cd0$5396b670$@huitema.net> <03E5ABD7-EA3C-4C69-B3F9-16C8B6C6E512@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <03E5ABD7-EA3C-4C69-B3F9-16C8B6C6E512@tony.li>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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, 04 Dec 2012 18:20:31 -0000

On 11/13/12 03:21, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
> 
> On Nov 12, 2012, at 11:49 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>; wrote:
> 
>>> No.  Today if you have a set of PA prefixes and your address changes from
>> one
>>> to another, your TCP connections all break.
>>
>> That's true, has been for quite some time, and yet nobody seems to be doing
>> much about it. Which makes you wonder how big of a problem that is in
>> practice. If applications were really hurting, you would hear complaints
>> from application developers. But you don't. The applications that need
>> reliable long duration sessions incorporate some trivial checkpoint and
>> restart mechanism, or some pretty elaborate consistency protocols for big
>> databases. They probably would do that no matter what the reliability of
>> TCP, as long as it is not "perfect." And PA renumbering is probably not very
>> high in their list of "stuff that occasionally break TCP."
> 
> 
> They don't do PA renumbering.  They do PI instead.  Clearly checkpoint and restart are not sufficient, otherwise they could do PA easily.

I don't know who "they" is but applications that want to be robust
across network changes have their own identity-related functions.  They
have done their own loc/id split, for the identities that matter to them
(app/session level), and use it to sustain sessions.  They don't care
about or need what this list is talking about.

swb