IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Mon, 02 June 2014 01:38 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485641A011A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xOT46ZBd_iag for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80401A010B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C193493BD; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 01:38:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA90D160068; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 01:44:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94D8E160067; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 01:44:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875B917236AC; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 11:38:29 +1000 (EST)
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org> <m2iooq4oqi.wl%randy@psg.com> <5385762E.5020901@dougbarton.us> <5385AA97.1050207@fud.no> <53864DCB.5070202@gmail.com> <53865EA2.9000502@fud.no> <02dc01cf7c06$cc6a4bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <97390E9C-460F-4D08-AFCE-E4A991E2B0E4@cisco.com> <46D22F62-3528-4B9D-9FCF-C9C7466A9ABA@delong.com> <20140531104145.GQ46558@Space.Net> <m1WqqZ4-0000DqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140531214908.10FEE1719BB4@rock.dv.isc.org> <m1WqrFK-0000BHC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <23125E9D-85A1-49EB-ACE6-DB5EAC67EE02@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr0pvet1oOip-Y2Xi_h2mSZfW1R5HtfiAGbDEns0dY-d2A@mail.gmail.com> <2A4B72CD-EDF3-4D11-AC39-B65892F9173F@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr2NH4Kca4EvhjN2XnDbt8F2eS56ipxu3npH9yOh1bmQaA@mail.gmail.com> <F12F173B-9FF2-4EF8-B11E-33AEDA24961F@nominum.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 01 Jun 2014 21:06:16 -0400." <F12F173B-9FF2-4EF8-B11E-33AEDA24961F@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:38:29 +1000
Message-Id: <20140602013829.875B917236AC@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/57eRy042k3sydLFJ376AOdu4dpg
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 01:38:41 -0000

In message <F12F173B-9FF2-4EF8-B11E-33AEDA24961F@nominum.com>, Ted Lemon writes
:
> On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> > And this problem is specific to IPv6 because...? 
> 
> IPv4 never claimed to provide ubiquitous support for multihoming.   IPv6 kind
>  of does.

IPv6 adds multiple addresses on a interface.   Multihoming support is
transport family agnostic.

Multihoming support is supposed to be done in IPv4 applications
unless you have a very good reason to not support it or do you think
SHOULD means it is a optional part of IPv4?

RFC 1123
 
   2.3  Applications on Multihomed hosts

      When the remote host is multihomed, the name-to-address
      translation will return a list of alternative IP addresses.  As
      specified in Section 6.1.3.4, this list should be in order of
      decreasing preference.  Application protocol implementations
      SHOULD be prepared to try multiple addresses from the list until
      success is obtained.  More specific requirements for SMTP are
      given in Section 5.3.4.

      When the local host is multihomed, a UDP-based request/response
      application SHOULD send the response with an IP source address
      that is the same as the specific destination address of the UDP
      request datagram.  The "specific destination address" is defined
      in the "IP Addressing" section of the companion RFC [INTRO:1].

      Similarly, a server application that opens multiple TCP
      connections to the same client SHOULD use the same local IP
      address for all.

All dual stack machines are multihomed.  HE is basically about fast
failover when the destination addresses are unreachable.  This is not
hard to do.  From memory BSD 4.2 supported non blocking connect
which is all that is required from the IP stack to do fast failover.

Mark

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email