Subject: Re: Draft of updated WG charter

From: vijay gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:39:58 +0000

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:58:18AM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:

> If the WG as a whole agrees with you (and this is an important point to nail
> down - my guess would be that they do not), then you've basically eliminated
> all solutions to the problem other than recycling Mobile-IPv6 mechanisms
> (since the charter rules out "let the routing do it", which means it has to
> be done via use of multiple addresses).
> 
> I'm curious as to why you want to rule out any changes to the end-hosts. I
> note that Mobile-IPv6 didn't restrict themselves in this way.

Significant amount of users that are multihomed have a setup that
accepts defaults from two providers, and anounces their blocks to
both upstreams. They receive no more information than the fact
that their connection is up. No routing tables, no prefixes, just
a quadzero.

(users defined as an enterprise, not the invididual computer user
obviously)

The end user system is often nat'd, and run through a stateful
firewall and all the information _they_ have is an ip address
of the gateway via dhcp.

Any end-host updating solution must work through this gobbledegook.

/vijay

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 23:31:24 +0100

> that their connection is up. No routing tables, no prefixes, just

That's not very smart.

> Any end-host updating solution must work through this gobbledegook.

NAT in IPv6 is of course unacceptable. Firewalls also have the 
potential to be harmful.

Having said this, I think we should recognize that the need to keep end 
systems simple is a legitimate one. That's why I think any non-router 
solutions should be implementable in middleboxes. This allows both the 
smart host, dumb network world view by running the multihoming solution 
on the hosts themselves, and the dumb host, smart network approach by 
having "the network" (= middleboxes) handle multihoming.

---

From: vijay gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 22:48:34 +0000

> >that their connection is up. No routing tables, no prefixes, just

Telling customers that they must spend several thousands of dollars
extra in capital so the IETF thinks they are smart, is not going to
win me much business.

> NAT in IPv6 is of course unacceptable. Firewalls also have the 

So far, it doesn't appear to have stopped promising local enterpises
from deploying large amounts of firewalls.

We must be on guard against this sort of thinking. Real world meets
powerpoints and wins. Every time.

/vijay

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:35:25 +0100

> extra in capital so the IETF thinks they are smart, is not going to

If a customer of mine were to consider such a setup I would explain to 
them that this way, they're not protecting themselves against a large 
class of potential failures. Maybe two views of the full 130000 entry 
global routing table is too much, but certainly just two defaults is 
too little. There is middle ground here.

> powerpoints and wins. Every time.

Another form of dangerous thinking is that just because a lot of people 
buy a certain product that provides certain functionality in a certain 
way, we must automatically support this particular method of providing 
said functionality in the future. Getting rid of old stuff is just as 
important as implementing new stuff if we want to make progress.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:21:36 +0100

Vijay,

We are not designing for an IPv6 network already ruined by NATs.

It is true that firewalls will still exist, but any IPv6 firewall
will have to deal with multiple addresses per host in any case.

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK