IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Two prefixes [draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC]

Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> Wed, 08 August 2012 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A058A21F8685 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 02:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.183
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.183 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.284, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_41=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jFPwt1ujCigs for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 02:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nm22-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm22-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.222]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E568421F867A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 02:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [98.139.91.66] by nm22.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Aug 2012 09:34:22 -0000
Received: from [98.139.91.57] by tm6.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Aug 2012 09:34:22 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1057.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Aug 2012 09:34:22 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 840023.11618.bm@omp1057.mail.sp2.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 65933 invoked by uid 60001); 8 Aug 2012 09:34:22 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com.au; s=s1024; t=1344418462; bh=T+jF5On/S0MWkaYR/TCnCY/2LapkIN2lIIUuA35pt7I=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=P3YapLpzM7CsxSIO4YlVdd8JIkRAmmG3X4ysSl/CsxUNJ088aFLgNF+nQFp67T5z1Dw2vH/PVmKfHK5gV2UCPXU0dSqQiqrFm/OzYWG968rkQmI1Zi04K38F2fpS3gGOOZXrVsDUQH9AQEQZvaMzka23tI0gkzft1Y6+XJ5HHgs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=4qD5EACFGHOBhVAv8Pi1couoDZVnMUDTzTav+3cfHFPD8Tw+tOl7O5G6lvoGDEiFwMXb7sK6HdLnU4vEFc59RnviXeOtsjpoy3nR2x7RWLmDN3zBzOfAeNPwZnpQhCvYk53DarBni0Skq5xO8xlpK4NKtWMfZMebNtUEVvTPfgI=;
X-YMail-OSG: BhrfCAcVM1llS_8ssoxldQBezaXN_i4AA7nkE0ECMGQTOAh 9WyOyJZlgEv_10FmSl9WhGC3IN5ILFhc.LAUvqpwybBb3gs0OH9JPj1DRs6m eRwqJmNLnP5M1z3JXAuopWb3WnwjkTqDUj8x6VNi9wOzItM61PHd1MxgpVbb v0u4Te4dw0Ll8R8ZdbqbJTclfVyoiZrVKG23DmkiOqrSYuWqEDYpVDHs2UhM OapJW3GeIEpnk4M_zqFsroa6P_yz_ynWFQelzjJZTjo4HQ1vRrOg1mkxVF5T Deu96SJH9fpx3goY1tX3w0WwQEal7JM41pSnNmLXVsBFR54uDNCDVnn7neN. KbVhyOeXkfgfLRmAMxaIIShyJG2ajKL1nqMgeMP10s0JEA2sgYZHhYQmNvYN Mg7ESLd2gACfBO9JqaD8052YFbmH7FZHSfP6OMUUfwyS57nmHvb6n0Y21CBM eESpVNtoWzgOMGhZJRYSDHxmVQu59mvbzetHTKFkRLQ2wdg--
Received: from [150.101.221.237] by web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 02:34:22 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.120.356233
References: <5F52A5BB-36F7-4CF9-9639-960C65ADFD4E@cisco.com> <CAD6AjGRMQ8o5fVHeWaOanKYomqJ0jArXS-zXm4qQdqacPS0QbA@mail.gmail.com> <5020DEC0.1090601@gmail.com> <1344332397.93146.YahooMailNeo@web32504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAD6AjGSAE3=rcSo2=96qfiY_41Kq8r5cSgC0N1-fbF+msMF0bg@mail.gmail.com> <50211B63.3020203@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1_bADT7cwX9QccRickCYHxqiaDu89Qz7fhbsyZZS6r-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1344418462.42995.YahooMailNeo@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 02:34:22 -0700
From: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1_bADT7cwX9QccRickCYHxqiaDu89Qz7fhbsyZZS6r-Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, V6ops Chairs <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Ron Bonica <ron@bonica.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Two prefixes [draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Mark ZZZ Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
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: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:34:23 -0000

>________________________________
> From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
>To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 
>Cc: V6ops Chairs <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>; "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>; Ron Bonica <ron@bonica.org> 
>Sent: Wednesday, 8 August 2012 3:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [v6ops] Two prefixes [draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC]
> 
>
>On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think that's unfair and kind of ignores draft-v6ops-multihoming-without-ipv6nat
>>
>>It works today. There are known difficulties with address selection
>>and with ingress filtering, of course. And it's a bit more fiddly to
>>configure routing and DNS for IT crews used to the old way of doing things.
>>But it really isn't unknown territory.
>>
>
>
>If I were a content provider, I would think twice before choosing an architecture that breaks TCP connections when upstreams go down.

Stateful LBs and NPTv6s also performing stateful payload address translation (e.g. because TCP sequence numbers have to be bumped) going down would also be similarly disruptive to TCP connections wouldn't they?

NPTv6 is better than traditional IPv4 NAPT because the address translation in the IPv6 headers is stateless, however translating addresses in application payloads may not be, and your NPTv6 devices also then have to be application protocol aware, creating constraints if you want deploy new application protocols. My experience on the residential eyeball side of IPv4 load balances and the troubleshooting problems they've caused me or workarounds I've had to deploy at the network layer makes me hope they'll be far less common in IPv6.

Regards,
Mark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email