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

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Tue, 24 June 2014 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
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 50ABC1B2A47 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 07:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 CUiD6UxW8zq5 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 07:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07D081B2A22 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 07:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.foobar.org ([IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::110]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.14.9/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s5OENKg4089507 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:23:20 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.netability.ie: Host [IPv6:2001:4d68:2002:100::110] claimed to be cupcake.foobar.org
Message-ID: <53A989D8.2080704@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:23:20 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
References: <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5385762E.5020901@dougbarton.us> <5385AA97.1050207@fud.no> <53864DCB.5070202@gmail.com> <53865EA2.9000502@fud.no> <02dc01cf7c06$cc6a4bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <97390E9C-460F-4D08-AFCE-E4A991E2B0E4@cisco.com> <46D22F62-3528-4B9D-9FCF-C9C7466A9ABA@delong.com> <20140531104145.GQ46558@Space.Net> <m1WqqZ4-0000DqC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <20140531214908.10FEE1719BB4@rock.dv.isc.org> <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> <20140602013829.875B917236AC@rock.dv.isc.org> <53A843C9.1040002@gmail.com> <70F894D7-8701-420F-B16F-F8EAF3AE276F@nominum.com> <53A94E88.6070101@foobar.org> <8E5FC7CC-454E-437F-A85B-69366BC5D7B5@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8E5FC7CC-454E-437F-A85B-69366BC5D7B5@nominum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hicaKuYWPBqBCR2MFHUj2_R7KGE
Cc: 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: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 14:23:27 -0000

On 24/06/2014 14:14, Ted Lemon wrote:
> So e.g. you would use a secondary IPv4 address on a host to do
> multihoming?

your question is badly specified because you don't say what you mean by
"multihoming" and it's not obvious from the context.

If you're referring to local connectivity on the same l2 domain where there
are multiple prefixes used on that lan, then adding multiple ipv4 addresses
to the same interface works without problems and has always done so.

If you're referring to something else which involves routing the traffic to
a different network by selecting a next-hop gateway depending on the host
address used, then that works as well as in ipv6, which is to say not at all.

Nick