On 01/09/2015 01:24, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:03:47PM -0700, joel jaeggli wrote: >>>> And that's a well-known issue that the IETF needs to finally tackle: >>>> source-address failover. >> >> So long as you don't invoke the prospect of either extremely expnesive >> overlay networks, or globably route scalability go right ahead those are >> both in play already. >> >> Hosts in in absence of state as turns out are rather good at >> instantaneous renumbering. e.g. as they roam between networks it >> remains a mystery to me that networks containy hosts are less able to >> cope. I may be in fact that that they are not less able to cope. > > No, that wasn't what I was talking about. Not "I get a new source address > and need to cope it", but "I have two source addresses with global scope, > tried one according to source-selection rules, it did not work, so I > should maybe try the other one now?"
Yes, you're correct that shim6 doesn't do that, and has other deployability issues that I noted. But unless we want every application and/or transport protocol to contain its own variant of happy eyeballs, this functionality (suck-it-and-see-until-it-works) would need to be inserted as a shim in the socket layer or somewhere around there. I'm not convinced there's a protocol involved, though. It's more a matter of "history", in the sense used in draft-baker-6man-multi-homed-host. Brian > > No network dynamics of any kind involved, just "a normal homenet > multi-ISP scenario" (with some breakage "somewhere upstream", not > something the host can easily see) - I thought that this would have been > obvious from the thread and WG list context. > > The advertised IETF solution for "(SoHo) multihoming" is "multiple global > IPv6 addresses", but this does not work yet as well as it could, partly > due to this missing piece. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
