> -----Original Message----- > From: James Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I don't agree that those OSes "screw up royally." They are, in fact, > doing what their users *tell* them to do. > > If an application binds the source address on Subnet B and then sends > a packet with a destination address that's either best reached or > *only* reachable over Subnet A, then what's the system to do? I think that Fred's draft tries to prevent applications from making such mistakes. Seems to me that whether the host is dual-homed on two separate interfaces, or multi-homed on various IP subnets on the same physical wire as Fred's draft discusses, is not all that different. > I agree that the underlying problem is common and one worth solving, > but I think doing so needs optional OS features to allow the user to > specify which expectations can be violated and under what conditions. > That sounds vaguely outside the normal IETF boundaries to me. > > (The underlying problem is, to me, just a lack of reasonable routing > policies. If a site is multihomed like that, then, at least in a > perfect world, both ISPs would know about _both_ subnets in use, and > that the same customer has a legitimate claim on both.) > > > I agree that calling this "source routing." or anything > similar, would > > be misleading. > > It *is* making packet routing decisions based on the source address. > Perhaps that's not exactly the same as "source routing" used in other > contexts, but for the first hop, it's the same thing. I'll concede your point on the first hop. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
