IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Tue, 03 June 2014 04:54 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 46C511A0097 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 21:54:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 yNCuPec0d_PM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 21:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064271A0092 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 21:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.6.108] ([213.55.105.113]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s534pQJ5031343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 2 Jun 2014 21:51:30 -0700
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com s534pQJ5031343
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1401771094; bh=+tJAc+lbg5LRhqpxImw1/STqCLA=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=cYsmhjeAT27g2w9AZU1bMm5SHp8SZVE9b/My14hDg5MGivkJGw5nq0xlttHeFGN2s 6lHFDWS/Ooe2JMJRo3JWtB4lwf6G5vNuJkpiInlkAbE1VgGt48qZlnTJK2s7FEHHpo sYW6FVmb7W/aqIhUeYBHWcNNxr825AXeRp3f7ZCo=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140602143321.GZ46558@Space.Net>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 21:51:24 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D6274AC2-A118-4C06-8908-EDD0BA0A6D30@delong.com>
References: <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> <CAKD1Yr1cGx7UfxZaEhm7oHA5PLvghVc52oPVkEQF90_7Vm__vw@mail.gmail.com> <1FDC3A7F-15EC-4397-AF3E-10F86EA04228@nominum.com> <5C274637-D63B-491E-8426-AEFDD106FB96@delong.com> <20140602143321.GZ46558@Space.Net>
To: Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Mon, 02 Jun 2014 21:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/qwLTn7lra7hPCFmj0P7Es31ugM0
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: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 04:54:22 -0000

On Jun 2, 2014, at 7:33 AM, Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:29:07PM +0100, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Multihoming works just fine without NAT as is. I run a network at home which is multihomed in both IPv4 and IPv6 without NAT.
>> 
>> Multihoming is not what is actually being discussed here. As Lorenzo pointed out this discussion seems to be limited to the (pathological) case of multihoming which involves a separate selection of source address for each upstream which is, for the most part, unique to IPv6 and does, indeed, pose additional challenges not present in traditional multihoming.
> 
> It would be really helpful if you could label your soapbox properly, and
> if you talk about "BGP based multihoming with PI addresses", then please
> *label* it as such.
> 
> The term "multihoming" does not imply more than "multihoming", in particular,
> it does not require a specific technology or addressing policy to be used.

I didn’t say it did.

Owen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email