IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Tue, 03 June 2014 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
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 471BD1A037B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 JT0kgVH1q-Ks for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oa0-x22a.google.com (mail-oa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B19C1A0375 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j17so6931378oag.29 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=5cgPq4tMUeE9rC2+m4xgddkSJ7ww6dBZJ7f2+b2e6A4=; b=lXXhIW37EKFmoZjrTbTCvXUFmrPLZkxaK89IIfa79woU/flpvSQzljuX1daN2Mgc3t 4lltieJfvuXoPGIDH4VtsY7LFXIaptdVhsKIk/2krwt5tsYvKobSjH+hOuQklD3MALt8 bRDrY8lJWS73lgJDtwULtcDovJTtvdmikXrk12Q5UK36XE1+ivlPxNhtT+3sRrauNSHW TPz+KceXH+UJCeJtds/8nGsrOBB8Afn8wEjS/JHX+lKlevli6JD4bC8kiT1JsTay52Or RW831/A6voUDZMcblyfcLRFM8ib/tJBE6T1BPb/KInbdcpBjhb7ivGpaxyX2jK7NHhyT //Mw==
X-Received: by 10.182.236.229 with SMTP id ux5mr51444383obc.12.1401830857075; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:27:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.183.8.7 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <538E32D0.9050005@gmail.com>
References: <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> <538BE13C.7050900@bogus.com> <20140602081743.GP46558@Space.Net> <538CE1CF.9030002@gmail.com> <20140602204730.GH46558@Space.Net> <538D7A71.6070906@uclouvain.be> <538E2D2E.4020903@gmail.com> <CAPv4CP_S61spd-QWgrGiDo0i5cpeuz2WUAr8__s=AWPF-6-HDw@mail.gmail.com> <538E32D0.9050005@gmail.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 17:27:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP93=r-VRSgpbVjmy-gy6fuZ6GE_gFO5jwPxytX1htRpkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZVNvWpyMWrRw-8nz0p1uc9vySkg
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] source address failover [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 21:27:44 -0000

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> My point is that there are useful learnings in shim6 as well as in MPTCP
> and SCTP. However, it will be very sad if we have to re-solve these
> problems in every application suite rather than solving them once
> in the stack.

Got it. Agree completely. But looking at the momentum, I'm betting on
higher layers. Content is driving the bus.

Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email