From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x22e.google.com (mail-wi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE4BA21F1EC for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id r20so2493257wiv.1 for ; Sat, 07 Jun 2014 12:07:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T0y1PK15V97Kv/scAO2zzSJZsF69slYNHrGQt6OfzeI=; b=gJzldKBdTZDmQp+u48/QTgrw9Xxizctj5LEZFUB6ojDZ1jeCcPrMMpZu9KW9i48hsy X4yLczA/FVblAgK6YlKg4U9hqZK98vJIyeWf6u85IzBz2rMNrTrs2zEzVUq7GlN4Px9m ZTKKoeQvdFysON7ddT01zBN+KD1GupG0A2e1hlhTqhfxrTgViOumSP8IGV1c161aV04G Et4beYpVunHXiv3igHBwGTLEU0rsybBtZKTxsihR7TEBcpetfUvY55uMU1xx7ANMi1gk dgi1FRLTc+UgUA4+hF37KvbALVQzmTwx+Q/hEsFdT+WJZA6pfCW6c6/PFiRovMOgZKR+ 8KJg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.22.100 with SMTP id c4mr5360017wjf.89.1402168053966; Sat, 07 Jun 2014 12:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.207.82 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 12:07:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140607185407.165BB119C54@ccr.org> References: <20140607185407.165BB119C54@ccr.org> Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 12:07:33 -0700 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: "Mike O'Dell" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Cerowrt-devel Digest, Vol 31, Issue 4 X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 19:07:36 -0000 On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Mike O'Dell wrote: > > Having links from multiple providers "just work" is indeed a grand idea. > > Unfortunately, IPv6 doesn't deal with multihoming any better than IPv4 do= esn't; > in fact, it's pretty clearly worse. > > you can get the bath water to run out a different hole by tipping > the bathtub, but you can't make in run *into* the bathtub the same way. Enter source-sensitive routing, with working implementations for both babel and ospfv3. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-homenet-7.pdf (and a couple drafts and papers related to it that I can dig up if you like - like this one: http://hal-univ-diderot.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/94/72/34/PDF/source-s= ensitive-routing.pdf We've needed this technology for ages, and it seems to work magnificently. I hope this summer to complete an example network with 5 upstreams... makes mptcp "just work" too. It does mean that you need hosts to have one ipv6 address per possible egress point, but that basically already happens on cellphones with wifi and 3g interfaces already. Related work is the mdns-sd stuff to make mdns scale well on home and campus networks. > I agree that nested NATs are suboptimal and usually unnecessary. Detecting when not to use nat via a standardized process would be good. Also in the offing. > > As for falling off the cliff of bridging, it depends entirely > on how far you fall and what you land upon. > > The fundamental problem is that the L2 fabric needs dynamic routing > more sophisticated than a Spanning Tree. It's not hard to do and There are ISIS fans in homenet. Also batman. > is quite effective at solving the problems of transiting local > dynamic topology without annoying the L3 machinery. It even provides > for traffic engineering of different traffic types without having > to suffer through the myriad NO-OPs created by the IETF trying to solve > the problem in a network flat as road-kill on an Interstate. Specifics please. > > -mo --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_= indecent.article