Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 - absence of req of prefix presence in PIO on LAN?

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Thu, 14 November 2019 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@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 19315120059 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:17:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.497 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 HHH5u9H9SyzP for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:17:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22e.google.com (mail-oi1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6650120058 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:17:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id d22so3925oic.7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:17:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zeTiAa+pUcTeeMyHVk+eqtWgm9Tc0FzZJsahcYcd19U=; b=jqn/43wArtEXmd7Qn7MGErHqQbe3L8ErR8xvFM1WTfLdlb3QMxlNxihYyKFmlEINvC HpoxcM4ALVRdxRY1Y2vtBcpUtDaokt/y2WNo/PNjmvxw79OEnLTiwLRpLXFgUpxPEMZt HFX5S5tGwYBET/7YgNWN/wYdhH6l3EdzMyqlKWNQABWi6I9SvkVBoUo4ML16gqRh1zik SvRGvZtzjJ3hN7TP8qzW0hQmcqiFM6Dq/owq5SpG7CiLZ/VbH5ni+HCOHUSh2eURcuTa H/hGTiUFE6N7K8c1fS+J8RvKtwI61whACX08nYoP+qJjisq/QVkHfxbzF2/3yjK85rjA Bzag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zeTiAa+pUcTeeMyHVk+eqtWgm9Tc0FzZJsahcYcd19U=; b=rv/CsU24Q+16Ax9NoUEg6MdPaFS0MCclXnkzBJc3ALvVZ9ETAZDWHwVKoVxFX/SCxw T356SUtf0TwVg9p1e3KVEmZP/U39sdd7/C28J+mxr3X9MCTDuHm08KZnu5nY+sdWLdFw 6egreUHrIT9DmGHgWKDYb9xUkqKCx4lIs7r69SmMrCaqHlS/yLVbiUErKcr2H517BbM0 o46lLKZlbZEbDAvXKfkoy430zpTJ6x7lx7hYt+yVnNDluUsj1PdO82NRDiqqBUN5hdNd aMRdr7+uk6Q2og0R05Sb0EIHNslQDUaWM75ts0G4GtJdqJStCe/qb7jmFDM0B5lLnu6d qqZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW/5/tmhPa4TmyzC6Cyyx7WHra1hk773VLOMGgRMiUXlgApUlff rCHKT1IBUXVLHjogaGcxjxlRWLa9TS6pj4+f9qU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxQVYE4CL8VM7IHN65YryoEJQ1+NdEXdv0kQoPLHvpNcLzpgHhGJBjgRBJ1UBd0vA57CdzlqCTDUPuGUMhbyaU=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:f553:: with SMTP id t80mr5510234oih.60.1573773441943; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:17:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <c4791cdd-6021-de83-6863-4d77ef1d1694@gmail.com> <CAOSSMjWu7C9jmG+8Yg7V++3GWzG+BSzFu0o0nHHYJY60P2T2oA@mail.gmail.com> <835b8b49-b00a-6fe3-1f47-7db7d5a76b92@gmail.com> <3e0779de-b740-a9e6-02ce-e18d43795f5c@gmail.com> <4568b864-ceff-f2d5-6941-638dd9d10027@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4568b864-ceff-f2d5-6941-638dd9d10027@gmail.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 10:17:08 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2w7J1j9fBXWahdKVDuHpOCux71M+dTCFOL7OgPGc=5Aag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6cf68059756ae39"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/eZ7fgQTxtsvY7xZskwhJr5oMbAU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 - absence of req of prefix presence in PIO on LAN?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:17:24 -0000

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019, 05:17 Brian E Carpenter, <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 15-Nov-19 01:49, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> ....
> > I think RFC8028 sounds in context: "First-Hop Router Selection in a
> > Multi-Prefix Network".
> >
> > However, I am not sure where RFC8028 would apply: is it between the CE
> > Router and the two ISPs?  Or is it between in-house Host and the single
> > CE Router?
>
> It is only useful in the case of *more than one* CE Router. As far as
> I know, that is not illegal.
>

I think it is a good idea to always imagine two or more router scenarios.
It helps prevent solutions being designed that will only work or only
easily work with one router.

Redundancy is constantly getting cheaper to have, may as well make it easy
to use.

(I have two routers on my LAN at home, current one IPv4 only, the other
IPv6 only. The IPv4 only router does have a dynamic IPv6 /64 for the LAN
interface if I wanted to use it - although marginal benefit, as from the
same ISP over the same ADSL link.)



>    Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>