IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Reachability [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 30 July 2013 22:13 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 434C311E8183 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 AbJ6CVd-K+oi for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B2F11E8125 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id lf11so81844pab.24 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gtWm+H/fcK30lGVpD+p+zbS4Kr76AAkZoABg+8+tOso=; b=WDD/c4zMogskdHeTgeJutBK4NdoqhsRZCphs6NW+jQ9jW6xNhZo36oMGEK0hIUeu/v onjCNYgJ4eQv7iX60aqlV/YJfRRL+B0qb4lu0xpWzW7QGaUXuTw/Ob0ye8lETysNZ58q 71JgMeEwgrGohrzfdPXIFlWTAV861PHqK558Fah7OPqYBQICl6EFDhz4LNkAqavGc0/d MqAMkdMB+qfUrkdyd8uzTCYZish/ZxonyLWQ4vxLoZHyrp0f6vML7PArZvZpMgjy5Eap vcFKANHNPCTIyizkusbZfhOqF4dhr8n54oxUjpCCEpmvAIsN1FkJ+e6JXx45kmNMJ5+H JqHQ==
X-Received: by 10.69.10.129 with SMTP id ea1mr76163619pbd.107.1375222419303; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.24.31.170] (wireless-nat-1.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.30.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 7sm263505paf.22.2013.07.30.15.13.35 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51F83A94.1010001@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:13:40 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <12351.1375184644@sandelman.ca> <CAKD1Yr27Y_wp1f89=gvarUc2q77p9LaKr_y-HJeCzYFPcuqMyA@mail.gmail.com> <9422.1375196203@sandelman.ca> <CAKD1Yr25M+Qj0_iegCMhxMwqq1soKbK849R_Az=zg+0eK+EC4A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775238774@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775238774@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "Byrne, Cameron" <Cameron.Byrne@t-mobile.com>
Subject: [v6ops] Reachability [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 30 Jul 2013 22:13:40 -0000

On 31/07/2013 03:55, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:42 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
>> Off-topic, but I don't think this is a fair assumption. The source of the information should determine what domain it's in, not the interface.
> 
> There is terminology in the MIF architecture document that I think would help to clarify this discussion if the participants are interested.   Lorenzo is right, and Michael is also right, depending on whether the duplicate IP address is in one explicit provisioning domain or in two explicit or implicit provisioning domains.   It can't ever be in a single implicit provisioning domain.

IMHO the question is broader than the phrase "provisioning domain" implies.
That is about where the address comes from. The more general aspect is
the scope of reachability of the address.

I came to the conclusion a few years ago that we need a generic way of
naming an individual scope of reachability (which in the case under
discussion might mean the union of two provisioining domains, but
who knows?). If the metadata for a prefix included all the scopes
of reachability that apply to it, things might be easier.

(There is some specfic text about this notion in section 2 of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-grobj-reqts-00).

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email