IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-00.txt

james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Wed, 23 March 2011 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@apple.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A3628C101 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14ay8A+Mi6HZ for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (mail-out3.apple.com [17.254.13.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 437BA28C0D6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83667D821CAE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807130-b7b5eae000005ccb-01-4d8a390be718
Received: from elliott.apple.com (elliott.apple.com [17.151.62.13]) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id D4.DB.23755.B093A8D4; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Received: from [17.193.15.152] by elliott.apple.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0LII0002WW3VM050@elliott.apple.com> for v6ops@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Sun-Java-System-SMTP-Warning: Lines longer than SMTP allows found and truncated.
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103231843550.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:16:42 -0700
Message-id: <B765A5E2-AF88-4CDF-8712-0D67F1E0CF9F@apple.com>
References: <20110305184502.18531.25548.idtracker@localhost> <4D7FE427.7000201@gmail.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30104A0ED@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4D8260E2.2080600@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103172035400.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1Q0gaW-0001gmC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <3179B83D-003E-4619-96F8-622E27752EC3@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103182204030.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se> <C1366B36-15E1-4E98-AED4-D95FD003793C@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103190558280.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se> <4D85053C.8040904@gmail.co> <m@apple.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C301183090@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103222250260.4842@uplift.swm.pp.s> <e@apple.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C301183164@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103230535040.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30118338D@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103231601011.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C301183471@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1212)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 23 Mar 2011 18:15:21 -0000

On Mar 23, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
>> 
>> [...] BR_101 forwards the packet to BR_201 [...].
> 
> [...] BR_101 tries to send it to ISP_1. [...]


Sigh.  If the BR_101 and BR_201 are receiving and processing one another's RA messages, then BR_101 and BR_201 could conspire to do what Hemant thinks they should do.  Like Mikael, I'm not sure how they would know to enter into such a conspiracy apart from expert manual configuration.

And once again, Brian Carpenter has already said what needs to be said about this.

On Mar 22, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> Again - this topic (and your analysis, if it's correct) seems to me to
> belong in the multihoming-without-nat66 draft.
> 
> As I said a long time ago when MIF was first discussed, it seems that what
> we need is to replace the concept of "default router" in the host stack
> with a concept of "default router per prefix".


I concur.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, core os networking

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email