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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 1, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2014, at 2:02 PM, joel jaeggli <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Assumption of the Existence of HE  is a pretty dodgy proposition.
> Then we can't do multihoming without NAT.

This rather badly qualified comment appears to have generated a lot of discussion, so to head off further discussion I'd like to clarify a few points.

First, if you are multihomed, and both paths are working, then a host that does nothing special will work.   Second, if one connection goes out, and the routing updates, then an application that just retries when it doesn't get a connection will get a connection; for applications for which delays on the order of the time it takes for routing to update are harmless, redundant multihoming will work with no changes.

So the statement I made was false when interpreted in this context.   I know that it's false, and you don't need to keep arguing with me to convince me it's false.   I'm sorry for having been sufficiently unspecific that people thought I meant my statement was true for the above cases.

The cases I care about are in fact edge cases.   They don't happen all the time, and depending on the application they may or may not be important.   I care about them because I've been affected by failures, and I'd like to be able to say how to get these cases right without resorting to the use of NAT or NPT.   I'd like for there to be better tools for application developers to use so that they can address these edge cases relatively cheaply; possibly even more cheaply than they now do network programming that doesn't address these edge cases.   If you don't care about these edge cases, you will have little concern for this, and will not consider dealing with these edge cases important.

I, and no doubt most participants on this mailing list, am deeply uninterested in hearing "it works okay for me, so your edge cases don't matter"   I am also not interested in trying to get you to say "I care deeply about these edge cases."   It's okay with me if you don't care about them, and don't consider it important that they be addressed.   You don't need to respond to this message with yet another assertion that there is no problem here--it won't convince me, and what I want to do about this probably won't affect your application anyway.

If you are interested in thinking about this problem, the place to discuss it is probably the MIF working group--it's related to the work that's being done there, although it's not the entirety of that work.   If you are not interested, please let's just let this drop.   I'm sorry for the troll--I didn't intend it to be a troll, but I could have phrased it in a way that was less trollish.  I will try to do better next time.