On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Jari Arkko wrote:
3. Source address selection problem for multihomed environments, Marcelo
  Bagnulo (10 min)
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bagnulo-rfc3484-update-00.txt
  Goal: Does RFC 3484 need updating? Provide input on Marcelo's multihoming
  issues.

Yes, I believe RFC3484 needs updating. I think it requires a bigger update than just source-address retrying that Marcelo argues for in this draft. Hence I think a better draft to start thinking about the revision is draft-arifumi-v6ops-addr-select-ps-00.txt which also includes the source address selection problem.

Two specific comments about draft-bagnulo:
- Section 2.2 talks about ISP-Internet link failing. These kind of events are very rare, and the issue is same for ISP-customer link failure. Hence, this problem should rather be described from that perspective. - Section 3.1.2 first change seems to assume that all the source addresses (when bind() is used for example) are equivalent. That's not necessarily the case. My perception is that app writers use bind() for client-like applications when they actually want to specify the address or interface (using SO_BINDTODEVICE or the like) in case of connected sockets or when they want to select the source address (so that they always use the same one) for unconnected sockets (e.g., NTP daemon). In either case, the proposed approach might not produce desired results. Hence, it would be useful to get a bit more knowledge of how folks use bind() like APIs for client apps. - Section 3.1.2, proposed rule 0 should probably include some discussion on what "is known to be not working" means and how it's determined. Draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault already showed that more specification would be useful with "known to be unreachable".

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to