IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org> Tue, 03 June 2014 22:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ggm@algebras.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 61F531A038D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:49:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 4vXQbsTCptw9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com (mail-pb0-f50.google.com [209.85.160.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C57231A038A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ma3so6049070pbc.23 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=QWeEE3bG3qOyDRywIV0SZ0yHK8OyR/tLIqJvi97OVIQ=; b=JvjF2DgDeaIbenZNa+KkcW4Wuii1+eyJYU4ON9P4mvj+gfE3ixa5eo70FZLwQmHJdz YIq7ojcDzwhPuwT0Ww+6F8ZuMCg2/1ffoWIFsL+YkprViD+xSUkEvX15Ao/FUYYYSkVM 2eIjMQ9f3qjSYQbe44sFCMrLAQCqy8xRfRgiftStdiUXr1IIHIB/5HFtoS6R+q2QHLRH JGVljFJef4RsCNGgFDBwVKn2G5jf8PRl/iokNpPQxvwSJPtpT2rkVOUItiWjLuog4yvH /U+jwKS5bVN0py2FB1KLOUapHk+cjdqWAcnaj6ygV6N3WjMQm/26KbqDhofgGZ6IdlP0 I/Ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl/4WNblmCFRDlQZYOLWdhupIrUbIEhTe2QW1L9HGvg9vh4kgqBD1rtY77Ws9SHLP4orCMz
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.218.231 with SMTP id pj7mr55388855pbc.95.1401835740455; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.37.78 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 15:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [2001:dc0:a000:4:a548:7657:72b0:a36e]
In-Reply-To: <m1Wrohy-0000DxC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
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> <m1Wrohy-0000DxC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 08:49:00 +1000
Message-ID: <CAKr6gn0Y0PabfxEHxgMrsk3LbOmqR5QK0bvOoMt9jRT0UWyohw@mail.gmail.com>
From: George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>
To: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b2ed26d595eb404faf651a2"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/BSZw-PZ84izZI10LS2ykFPFlrOE
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 22:49:08 -0000

Its only a personal opinion, but I feel (based on what we see in V6
measurements that HE) has been a net overall mistake.

 * its not consistently implemented.
 * it collides with other mechanisms for address/family selection such as
the apple RTT estimation model
 * its inherently non-deterministic
 * its not under (much) end user control

I cannot believe that making it an across the board, or adding more
complexity is going to make it better.

-G


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com
> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email