IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Reachability [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share]

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 31 July 2013 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5427211E8174 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.528
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id odvH6IsgXsoW for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B3311E8177 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUfjDhDCNdaXagesGzRIUBd0i6FJZWZl3@postini.com; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:57:56 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D46F91B8283 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81186190065; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:57:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:57:54 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Reachability [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share]
Thread-Index: AQHOjXILgP4s3Cr1Y0KYZoQxVxepkJl+4cUA
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:57:53 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775239C49@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <12351.1375184644@sandelman.ca> <CAKD1Yr27Y_wp1f89=gvarUc2q77p9LaKr_y-HJeCzYFPcuqMyA@mail.gmail.com> <9422.1375196203@sandelman.ca> <CAKD1Yr25M+Qj0_iegCMhxMwqq1soKbK849R_Az=zg+0eK+EC4A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775238774@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <51F83A94.1010001@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51F83A94.1010001@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5EE8A93513750641AD0F671F8DB01FB3@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "Byrne, Cameron" <Cameron.Byrne@t-mobile.com>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Reachability [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-64share]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:58:03 -0000

On Jul 31, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> I came to the conclusion a few years ago that we need a generic way of
> naming an individual scope of reachability (which in the case under
> discussion might mean the union of two provisioining domains, but
> who knows?). If the metadata for a prefix included all the scopes
> of reachability that apply to it, things might be easier.

An implicit provisioning domain is one that wasn't specified, but assumed by the host.   A formal provisioning domain is specified by configuration information received from the network. The architecture doc requires that in order for two provisioning domains to be the same, they have to both be formal and be securely validated.

It seems to me that reachability is a property of an advertised prefix, and not of a provisioning domain.   So if you have the same IP address on two interfaces, you have the same prefix, and hence the same reachability, with respect to that prefix.

Obviously if the reachability isn't the same this will cause problems, but I think that's a configuration error.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email