From arnaud.kaiser@cea.fr Tue Jun 18 06:20:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3081021F9F14 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:20:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xaakl8VHuTsa for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BD221F9EBC for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id r5IDK4dM010924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:20:05 +0200 Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5IDK4Qh022309 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:20:04 +0200 (envelope-from arnaud.kaiser@cea.fr) Received: from [10.8.33.118] (is010461-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.118]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id r5IDK4Xa003085 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:20:04 +0200 Message-ID: <51C05E8B.4020706@cea.fr> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:20:11 +0200 From: Arnaud Kaiser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mif Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: [mif] Annoncing new draft: draft-kaiser-if-sel-00 X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:20:13 -0000 Dear participants to mif group, We just submitted "Interface Selection Mechanism for Multiple Interfaces IPv6 Hosts" draft-kaiser-if-sel-00 available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kaiser-if-sel-00 This document describes an interface selection mechanism that enables multiple interfaces (multihomed) IPv6 hosts to select their most appropriate egress interface to send data over the network. The mechanism extends the Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol [RFC4861] with two new Router Advertisement options. The interface selection is based on the metric considered in the network: routers provide informations to hosts about the cost of the links and the total cost of specific routes (upon hosts requests). Using these informations hosts select their outgoing interface leading to improve the end-to-end routing. We would like the mif group to consider this draft. Your comments are very welcome. Thanks in advance, Arnaud & Alex -- Arnaud KAISER, PhD Research Engineer DRT/LIST/DIASI/LSC CEA SACLAY – NANO INNOV Building 862 – Office 9 91191 GIF-SUR-YVETTE CEDEX Phone: +33 (0)1 69 08 07 28 Mail: arnaud.kaiser@cea.fr From lorenzo@google.com Tue Jun 18 16:45:51 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E272411E811A for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:45:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.044 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2jsLcXVWuv+E for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x230.google.com (mail-vb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA91921F881F for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id w15so3277645vbf.21 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:45:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=H5FDbbIBMehqllBqQuSXDQgFLqlr6sexs73LZqVtb6E=; b=IbKOMA7+z+bzNDC/v7zq2HH5Zc0Wjpa8Z5pHvm/XqrqObboVqMlVxFFfvvp48On3K/ a5Xa9jCL9sH7etrAnz+xl2oMQAQEQbuRuch3ZFxmT3Id0XdAkA1QkodHFndOEBb90sKl gFQmKp88cJoRW6cm+5dE7+Mq5Gog2Ks2VeRRa3+KuINUvq7ivzVpXZMuM8dsfWWaLKMp 7qtYV5Uy//hjiX2VQbIS4dFhNED4rDN1VsgrDyhStp5gZpIm1SZZhHogfcmYYEWv/2N0 pMHmFk6IBeG0JpOds4dFlwwaGWdCKxKyoHxqEnEun9/t6+2hwFp5LYtzUgI8MSiJiWzJ tmqg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=H5FDbbIBMehqllBqQuSXDQgFLqlr6sexs73LZqVtb6E=; b=AwfTVvnegegq4vEzLG+f7UgDCcgG4PMlyP5wOkCigTyNok18/c21TymT6oxPZFVvik s29NEvLUWN8w1C+Ww/97KrrSRWzk/i3RoEw4U+jFUvj0rpk5Lnezx9f75utqnn8hWZTK MJq+1Q8FWpBvnUeFoZCV4VCovgbiG24+LqmEAkzGKxQESpfmsQ10EC1IECaoxmCnjpD6 2lCwEu8ZY+e3PnnMAZd+Jvw3MVsEVXDZ5R+Qq4OT8RmXuRChRY47qDW+XOjybY9b1c0m xfTyXhE1FftKDKyZErttvyP+nkWO6CsFsKbh/3yoyLcb60sFBuQfKxs0ddB7bHK9onkI 2F2A== X-Received: by 10.58.100.234 with SMTP id fb10mr124650veb.5.1371599150111; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:45:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.172.66 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:45:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51C05E8B.4020706@cea.fr> References: <51C05E8B.4020706@cea.fr> From: Lorenzo Colitti Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:45:30 -0700 Message-ID: To: Arnaud Kaiser Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a27461e121304df7650a5 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnS5A0JYZJSl5N2qzyH+h3kBB7AH1Kfj7q7vuncrXAA2cq1quaJt829tRXWKkVWvpJ7bpidhWHBxvrUaKc23VxuVqa8NYw17xGGcqnwsI9gd2QDSJ51UyhpY6DFtXBMhsaUFNYRwp0dwCeTXn0jGRmuq00Q4u7gVOXmdjtBhNWRSLanNc3sCRsRu7AKFMqoL/faxyfn Cc: mif Subject: Re: [mif] Annoncing new draft: draft-kaiser-if-sel-00 X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:45:52 -0000 --089e013a27461e121304df7650a5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Arnaud Kaiser wrote: > This document describes an interface selection mechanism that enables > multiple interfaces (multihomed) IPv6 hosts to select their most > appropriate egress interface to send data over the network. The > mechanism extends the Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol [RFC4861] with > two new Router Advertisement options. > > The interface selection is based on the metric considered in the network: > routers provide informations to hosts about the cost of the links and the > total cost of specific routes (upon hosts requests). Using these > informations hosts select their outgoing interface leading to improve the > end-to-end routing. > A couple of comments: 1. It appears that you are proposing that whenever a host wants to send a packet to a new destination IP address, it must first send a packet to all the routers on the link asking them what the cost of talking to that address is. This behaviour is a big change to how IPv6 communication works, because nowhere in IPv6 (or in IPv4, either) do we talk to routers before sending packets. A change of that magnitude should go through careful review by 6man before it is made. Also note that such a change can have very substantial impact to end-to-end latency (think cell network, where the router is at least 20ms away) and scalability (think enterprise network, with 5000 clients on the same router), and opens up the possibility of DoS attacks on the router. I don't think this is a good idea. 2. The proposal says that all RAs MUST contain the new link cost option. What happens when it does not? Even if all the routers in the world immediately adopt this option, what about routers that have not been updated? 3. A host can in general be connected to different networks operated by different entities (think home wifi and cell network). If those two entities do not have a prior agreement, how does it work? They could each pick different costs, or pick the "wrong" costs. What if they have the same costs? --089e013a27461e121304df7650a5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Arnaud Kaiser <arna= ud.kaiser@cea.fr> wrote:
This document describes an interface selection mechanism t= hat enables
multiple interfaces (multihomed) IPv6 hosts to select their most
appropriate egress interface to send data over the network. The
mechanism extends the Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol [RFC4861] with
two new Router Advertisement options.

The interface selection is based on the metric considered in the network: r= outers provide informations to hosts about the cost of the links and the to= tal cost of specific routes (upon hosts requests). Using these informations= hosts select their outgoing interface leading to improve the end-to-end ro= uting.
=A0
A couple of comments:

1. It appears that you are proposing that whenever a = host wants to send a packet to a new destination IP address, it must first = send a packet to all the routers on the link asking them what the cost of t= alking to that address is.

This behaviour is a big change to how IPv6 = communication works, because nowhere in IPv6 (or in IPv4, either) do we tal= k to routers before sending packets. A change of that magnitude should go t= hrough careful review by 6man before it is made.

Also note that such a change can have very = substantial impact to end-to-end latency (think cell network, where the rou= ter is at least 20ms away) and scalability (think enterprise network, with = 5000 clients on the same router), and opens up the possibility of DoS attac= ks on the router. I don't think this is a good idea.

2. The proposal says that all RAs MUST cont= ain the new link cost option. What happens when it does not? Even if all th= e routers in the world immediately adopt this option, what about routers th= at have not been updated?

3. A host can in general be connected= to different networks operated by different entities (think home wifi and = cell network). If those two entities do not have a prior agreement, how doe= s it work? They could each pick different costs, or pick the "wrong&qu= ot; costs. What if they have the same costs?
--089e013a27461e121304df7650a5--