[v6ops] Two prefixes [draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Change of subject header, to separate out this topic:

On 07/08/2012 14:12, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2012 2:39 AM, "Mark ZZZ Smith" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>>> To: Cameron Byrne <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; V6ops Chairs <
> [e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 7 August 2012 7:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC
>>>
>>> On 07/08/2012 04:59, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>>>  On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>  This is to open a two week Working Group last Call on
>>>>>
>>>>>  http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance
>>>>>    "IPv6 Guidance for Internet Content and Application Service
>>> Providers",
>>>>>    Brian Carpenter, Sheng Jiang, 10-Jul-12
>>>>>
>> <>
>>>>  It seems like NPTv6 is a much more modern approach that is much more
>>>>  likely to be deployed ...
>>> For content providers???
>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't NPTv6's Experimental status mean it shouldn't really be
> suggested in an advisory document like this? If it was mentioned, then I
> think there'd have to be text discussing it's drawbacks in ICP scenarios
> e.g. the consequences of content hosts/applications not knowing their own
> IPv6 identity, and discussion around NPTv6 in a situation where the "cloud"
> application traffic is encrypted (I think this is going to increase
> significantly with the rapid adoption of BYO devices and Wifi offload).
>> Regards,
>> Mark.
> 
> NPTv6 is not really the focus of my comment. The focus was supposed to be
> using 2 prefixes for multihoming or migrating isps.
> 
> I dont think anyone would do this today. Doing it, afaik, would be a
> science experiment 

I think that's unfair and kind of ignores draft-v6ops-multihoming-without-ipv6nat

It works today. There are known difficulties with address selection
and with ingress filtering, of course. And it's a bit more fiddly to
configure routing and DNS for IT crews used to the old way of doing things.
But it really isn't unknown territory.

> and therefore should not be a recommended approach. I

If we are only addressing a few thousand sites, sure, but how else do
you suggest we deal with content providers by the million?

> understand ipv6 was designed to work this way. .... But afaik, it is not
> really exercised.  If someone has done it in a production network, that
> would be good to know

Yes, facts are always good.

    Brian