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

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Mon, 02 June 2014 08:10 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@Space.Net>
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 572201A02BA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 01:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 hyIzEUnALdiC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 01:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCC271A02C5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 01:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA2360B39 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:09:49 +0200 (CEST)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C246460AD5 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:09:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (qmail 14180 invoked by uid 1007); 2 Jun 2014 10:09:49 +0200
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:09:49 +0200
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <20140602080949.GO46558@Space.Net>
References: <m1WqrFK-0000BHC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <23125E9D-85A1-49EB-ACE6-DB5EAC67EE02@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr0pvet1oOip-Y2Xi_h2mSZfW1R5HtfiAGbDEns0dY-d2A@mail.gmail.com> <2A4B72CD-EDF3-4D11-AC39-B65892F9173F@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr2NH4Kca4EvhjN2XnDbt8F2eS56ipxu3npH9yOh1bmQaA@mail.gmail.com> <F12F173B-9FF2-4EF8-B11E-33AEDA24961F@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr1cGx7UfxZaEhm7oHA5PLvghVc52oPVkEQF90_7Vm__vw@mail.gmail.com> <1FDC3A7F-15EC-4397-AF3E-10F86EA04228@nominum.com> <538BDA84.6030800@bogus.com> <37D09BEE-FEDF-4514-8CEB-62959A89C3FF@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <37D09BEE-FEDF-4514-8CEB-62959A89C3FF@nominum.com>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Kt2tQJjfN_sPXVEpZ9JwsjjxZAg
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 08:10:00 -0000

Hi,

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:10:10PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:59 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> > Ted I think you need rethink what you're claiming. for one rfc 6555
> > makes no claims about ipv6 address selection between multiple addresses.
> > it in fact sets aside the issue of having more than the two address
> > familes to chose from. I daresay if you have six v6 routes you probably
> > don't want to make six requests and see which one is fastest as a
> > general rule.
> 
> How is this different than doing happy eyeballs between v4 and v6?   Is it different because you're sextuply multi-homed?   I agree that that begins to look a bit problematic, but the more usual two-provider case is pretty much the same as regular happy eyeballs.

Actually, implementation-wise, there is a huge difference between

 source A       ---> talk to destination X, Y
 source A, B    ---> talk to destination Z

and it's time the IETF provides some answers how to handle the second case
(which HE doesn't talk about, and even ietf-mif-happy-eyeballs-extension
only addresses for the specific case where A and B are not on the same
interface).

6724 will not help very much in the second case - it will ensure that
"one of the GUAs" is used, but due to lack of further rules, will fall
through to the "most bits match" rule - which is only the "best" path
for some limited cases, like "talk to other hosts direclty in the A/B /32".

Worse, if you pick source A and that does not work because ISP A has 
an issue, no getaddrinfo() / HE implementation will fall back to try 
source B  (supposedly MacOS does, but I haven't verified that yet), as
the whole topic of source address probing / source address failover is
completely underspecified yet.  As in "it's complicated, leave us alone
with that stuff".

(But I'm sure we can do a lengthy discussion whether this could be solved
with RA or DHCPv6 options)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279