IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X"

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 01 November 2019 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 1CE551210F8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:33:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 05FLWQcXb5EA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:33:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90755121144 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1iQbjJ-0000FNC; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 19:33:01 +0100
Message-Id: <m1iQbjJ-0000FNC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <94BBC308-365D-41A8-96FB-242BF63FFBF9@employees.org> <D3B1E770-F199-4605-BF78-A3637D6CDB42@fugue.com> <4288FBC0-C421-464F-9D55-7FB77AA1FA4E@employees.org> <20191101.124409.30333597.sthaug@nethelp.no> <BEC713D0-361F-4489-9D57-29781BC70B67@delong.com> <BA156D22-15D4-43F6-BE74-AB681F5B0BF6@fugue.com> <C9DB0F8E-D8D6-4FC7-B325-B2EB9DF1806B@delong.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:23:54 -0700 ." <C9DB0F8E-D8D6-4FC7-B325-B2EB9DF1806B@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 19:32:58 +0100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/wrg7rkc2ZdFwoDW-vEUc1rYFH1g>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A broken promise - "You said PD Prefix Valid Lifetime is going to be X"
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:33:16 -0000

>    This is not to say that making layer two as solid as possible
>    shouldn't be a goal; just that it is merely one of the tools we
>    have for making the network reliable, not the /only/ tool.
> 
>    Yeah, but we're really talking more about layer 3 than layer 2
>    here.

Conceptual it should not be hard for MPTCP to deal with this issue.
In practice, we may have a bit of deployment problem. 

But the bigger question would be, if MPTCP would iterate over all possible
sources addresses in a happy-eyeball fashion, is that something we want?
We already have the issue that HE masks brokenness. If we promote that 
as a default mode in transport protocols, we may invite quite a big mess.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email