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

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com> Tue, 03 June 2014 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.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 036BC1A026A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 06:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2] 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 eZM1vSjyLgiv for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 06:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDEA1A01F6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 06:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #91) id m1Wrohy-0000DxC; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:24:54 +0200
Message-Id: <m1Wrohy-0000DxC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-bBB316E3E@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <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> <538B6AC3.7020402@bogus.com> <1DA781EA-D249-4B91-B8B7-3B719CE88925@nominum.com> <F07722F4-6791-4EF0-B8F2-3072DA98401E@nominum.com> <20140602233943.47DF017375B9@rock.dv.isc.org> <20140603130522.GQ46558@Space.Net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:05:22 +0200 ." <20140603130522.GQ46558@Space.Net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:24:53 +0200
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/8xJglkmgFeCsgKWp4BvUn6041Fs
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: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 13:25:03 -0000

In your letter dated Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:05:22 +0200 you wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 09:39:43AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Extending HE to do multiple source addresses (one per prefix) within
>> a adddress family will give pretty much the same robustness as
>> running BGP at the cost of some embryonic connections if the initial
>> attempt doesn't work.
>
>It will give you *better* robustness than BGP, because BGP can not send
>your packets around dataplane failures where control plane still advertises
>reachability.
>
>I find this very important to point out, again and again :-)

The good news is that in a network that provides hosts with just one prefix
this feature should be harmless.

But I'm not holding my breath for getting any kind of wide spread
implementation of such a feature.