IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66 WGLC

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 01 March 2011 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 564B93A6996 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:00:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.231
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 i6UhbnC9-fUM for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:00:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102343A6946 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:00:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=885; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1298995302; x=1300204902; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ELf/1y69hAT9/TgpnIjAJe1NVkwTCrdMGN99seq621Y=; b=e7fRLpyaFFZePk1YcwE1/NpIs1a5Zw5k4ITGu5wa1YyEiDYED0HbyLiP LqvMoSJhEtvsRP/nwtOyRYrd5htxqQ8d41tqMlCa/8Cj5G36r+fWH2siW gzJ7cNSKqvBsp7aZLfsyk1nUQY1IQ94+jO+EfCmQazsYMZ7P0JpjMAmOz s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAqnbE2rRN+K/2dsb2JhbACmTHSgMZwxhWEEhRKHDQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,247,1297036800"; d="scan'208";a="272266417"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2011 16:01:42 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-219.cisco.com [10.32.244.219]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p21G1gBr011607; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 16:01:42 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <00e601cbd801$2cebaa00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:01:42 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0148392A-9BE8-411F-B464-10AC893B472D@cisco.com>
References: <0E87AEAD-8476-499E-8946-C8E31D2E21E9@cisco.com><m262s4poz2.wl%randy@psg.com><056B511A55F8AA42A3E492B7DD19A3193C14BB@008-AM1MPN1-015.mgdnok.nokia.com><m262s4cp4n.wl%randy@psg.com> <4D6C000B.1090704@bogus.com><056B511A55F8AA42A3E492B7DD19A3193C19A8@008-AM1MPN1-015.mgdnok.nokia.com> <00DFEA69-DD43-49C0-A012-360BDCB41171@cisco.com> <00e601cbd801$2cebaa00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66 WGLC
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: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:00:41 -0000

On Mar 1, 2011, at 3:09 AM, t.petch wrote:

> Prior to RFC1122, I find a definition of multi-homing in RFC791, which is what I
> usually use as a reference.

    Care must be taken in mapping internet addresses to local net
    addresses; a single physical host must be able to act as if it were
    several distinct hosts to the extent of using several distinct
    internet addresses.  Some hosts will also have several physical
    interfaces (multi-homing).

Grep didn't find it because of the dash...

I actually have a problem with that definition, though. Yes, a host can act as if it were multiple; virtual hosts do that. But in MultiTCP and shim6, the host behaves as if it has more than one address, and the address is (correctly) understood to be a determiner of a route. I understand what Jon was getting at, but I think it is too limiting.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email