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

[Cameron Byrne <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Change of subject header, to separate out this topic:
>
> On 07/08/2012 14:12, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> 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
>
> I think that's unfair and kind of ignores draft-v6ops-multihoming-without-ipv6nat
>
> It works today. There are known difficulties with address selection
> and with ingress filtering, of course. And it's a bit more fiddly to
> configure routing and DNS for IT crews used to the old way of doing things.
> But it really isn't unknown territory.
>
>> and therefore should not be a recommended approach. I
>
> If we are only addressing a few thousand sites, sure, but how else do
> you suggest we deal with content providers by the million?
>
>> 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
>
> Yes, facts are always good.
>
>     Brian
>


One of the keys here that i overlooked is the ICP will certainly not
be using SLAAC.  They will be using static addresses manual, automated
manually (Puppet, ...) , or via DHCPv6.  That said, this is an issue
of automation and instrumentation on how addresses are assigned and
therefore should not be much of challenge, including running multiple
prefixs in a short transition period.

Meaning, this problem is solved in IPv4 for ICPs and those same IPv4
solution apply in IPv6.

CB