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

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

I think both multiple prefix and NPTv6 for multihoming should be mentioned and stated that each of them has their own issues.

As discussed in INTAREA meeting in Vancouver, NPTv6 has referral issues, which are difficult to solve. Multiple prefix model was in original IPv6 design, but has not yet been widely proved yet. We at least know there are filtering and address selection issues.

Giving the fact, there is no best current practice yet, we should document potential solutions and their issues WITHOUT a recommendation, if we are going to discuss the best way for multihoming.

However, as far as I concern, this document does not discuss multihoming solutions at all. It only mentions these solutions as potential scenarios when discusses routing impacts.

Best regards,

Sheng

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Cameron Byrne
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:12 PM
To: Mark ZZZ Smith
Cc: [e-mail]; V6ops Chairs; Ron Bonica
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC


On Aug 7, 2012 2:39 AM, "Mark ZZZ Smith" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > To: Cameron Byrne <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; V6ops Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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