Re: Distributing site-wide RFC 3484 policy

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 26-jul-2007, at 15:02, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:

> 	what i've said is, it MAY NOT best to use ADDR-A to go out from
> 	ISP-A!

Well, then make a policy entry that tells the host what is the best  
combination.

(Ignoring the obvious ingress filtering problem for a moment.)

>         you cannot see the EGP routing table of ISP-A (unless you are
> 	insider) so you have no (or very little) idea!

What's your point?

> 	as long as you use RT-A consistenly, there's no issue with multipath
> 	TCP packet reordering.

There is no rule against reordering IP or TCP packets.

> 	so you cannot rewrite your IP stack but you are saying you can  
> rewrite
> 	all of your application to use something next to getaddrinfo(3).
> 	i see some contradiction.

No, you're being difficult, and I'm starting to think it's on purpose.

The vendors have to make the software do what's right. I can  
rearrange the hardware in my network if that makes everything work  
better.

> > >   in fact, if you pick a
> > > 	global address it would be easier for A to handle traffic from B.

> > Nonsense.

> 	well, if you say "so?" or "nonsense", that is total denial from  
> making
> 	a constructive argument.  it isn't an argument clinic ala monty  
> python.

Saying that a global address is better than a private address for a  
function that doesn't need the functionality of a global address  
WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY THAT WOULD BE SO is even worse. Are we still  
having a useful discussion?

I'm getting pretty tired of these based-on-nothing arguments against  
ULAs. Come up with a reason why they're so bad or shut up about them.  
That goes for all ULA haters, btw.

> 	or maybe not a constructive argument - i should say goodbye and try
> 	to deploy IPv6 to other people, and then you will be left with IPv4.

Oh right.

http://lists.apple.com/archives/Ipv6-dev/2007/May/msg00011.html