Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Tue, 13 November 2012 08:23 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
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 9E3B921F88FB for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:23:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, 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 XR9RNf6Eltm0 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:23:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:43:76:96:30:16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD9121F88F7 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:23:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.51]) by qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NwHy1k00K16AWCUA1wPSAa; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:23:26 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn6-539.cisco.com ([128.107.239.233]) by omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id NwMB1k00452qHCY8SwMDYL; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:21:24 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
In-Reply-To: <09cc01cdc173$71323cd0$5396b670$@huitema.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:21:10 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <03E5ABD7-EA3C-4C69-B3F9-16C8B6C6E512@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>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
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 08:23:26 -0000

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.

Again, this has been discussed endlessly already.

Tony