IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Mon, 02 June 2014 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
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 A86751A0331 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 06:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 dn1kUvK21iLd for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 06:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66BA31A0325 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 06:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.53.146.217] ([88.128.80.30]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s52DT8a8026155 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 06:29:11 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s52DT8a8026155
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1401715751; bh=wFI9Bji3twDmunt7CeGwJcOnru0=; h=References:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Cc:From:Subject:Date:To; b=z88aN5gyA4gxAtTwwMwW79PRG83ZZOIw7v2IQbRgTMKTjZlk07k+5/ny5WaYhnlhx V8Ku6KAU5FFHVtv1+6vUtLBMUo93P4SO0oQOqnaTnYL2Zt0fuROL2PcNORdC/OWy0E crGRBohHY6LmJjg1zr4p38yQNfLJXUT57I8DNPQc=
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> <CAKD1Yr1cGx7UfxZaEhm7oHA5PLvghVc52oPVkEQF90_7Vm__vw@mail.gmail.com> <1FDC3A7F-15EC-4397-AF3E-10F86EA04228@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <1FDC3A7F-15EC-4397-AF3E-10F86EA04228@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5C274637-D63B-491E-8426-AEFDD106FB96@delong.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11D201)
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:29:07 +0100
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/698uOIDHGW13mUrCNiQgCNzBUxo
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 13:35:21 -0000


> On Jun 2, 2014, at 2:19 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:12 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
>> There is no such claim. The only difference between IPv4 and IPv6 with regard to multihoming is that IPv6 supports more than one IPv6 address on the same interface, whereas some IPv4 implementations don't.
> 
> I would like multihoming to work, and I'd like it to work without NAT.   If you would like something else, that's okay.  But my impression is that I am not alone in thinking this is a key benefit of IPv6 over IPv4, even if it's still not fully baked (RFC 7157 notwithstanding).

Multihoming works just fine without NAT as is. I run a network at home which is multihomed in both IPv4 and IPv6 without NAT.

Multihoming is not what is actually being discussed here. As Lorenzo pointed out this discussion seems to be limited to the (pathological) case of multihoming which involves a separate selection of source address for each upstream which is, for the most part, unique to IPv6 and does, indeed, pose additional challenges not present in traditional multihoming.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email