> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:21:33PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > What happens if one of your links goes down for a day? > > > > Do all your ssh sessions to everywhere in the world stay up? > > > > The internet has non-transient traffic, too. > > No, I will have to re-start some of them. This is something that can > only be fixed by getting rid of the assumption about non-changing host > addresses.
Luckily that is not a problem in ipv4. > The other solutions do not scale to the size of the Internet; > I could get BGP at home but I don't want to, it is easier (and cheaper) > to just restart connections in the rare event of one line breaking. No, it is not easier to restart connections. I have a remote ssh session that has been running for 4 weeks, and 2 of my 4 upstreams have gone down during that time. > v4 vs v6 has very little to do with this; the world wants roaming and > multi-homing, and BGP is not going to give it to the masses. NAT may > enable multi-homing, but it does nothing to help roaming (on the > contrary, state in the network makes it harder; and NATs tend to break > my idle SSH sessions even when there is no fault in any line) Everyone wants roaming, so stable addressing must die. Brilliant logic. Just brilliant. You will have a brilliant career at the IETF designing protocols. > Do your ssh sessions stay up if one of your upstreams starts blackholing > but still announces you a full table of routes? My upstreams don't blackhole me, since that would be an administrative procedure. They don't do it, because it is bad for business. You cannot equate an administrative procedure which isn't done, to an engineering mistake which screws everyone.
