Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC

[Cameron Byrne <[e-mail]>]

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 and therefore should not be a recommended approach. I
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

CB