IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 02 June 2014 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 B03D31A0265 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 OTkXYrR3pjjy for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C69511A0350 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 09:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mbp.local (31.66.208.web-pass.com [208.66.31.202] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s52GCJn7093078 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 16:12:20 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <538CA255.7070205@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:12:05 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:30.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/30.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
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> <538C93E9.7080405@bogus.com> <20140602152642.GB46558@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20140602152642.GB46558@Space.Net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nrLPAwVapurT22uSgKD2qLunWMHsVATT9"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:12:21 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/iazhbkuTw4J40BCTv7kE19CrvHg
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, V6 Ops List <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: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:12:28 -0000

On 6/2/14, 8:26 AM, Gert Doering wrote:

>> yes, bgp multihoming doesn't solve it either. that has not rendered it
>> unsuitable for use.
> 
> BGP multihoming has it's uses, but I think all but Owen agree that it's
> not going to solve the "billions of leaf networks without IT knowledge"
> case.

Right, nor are we suggesting it is. Lets say it, the attachment costs,
borne individually and collectively make it entirely unsuitable for this.

> Multi-Address multihoming has the potential to be a radical improvement
> for "leaf networks without IT knowledge".  

You and I agree on this.

Where I disagree is that the devices attached to network should be
assumed to bear the cost of fine grained decision making. We should not
assume that they all should, and multihomed homenets should function
reasonably well even if they do not.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email