[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Two Prefixes in One Address (was: new draft)
On 2003-05-11 15:30:42 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> After friday's discussion I wanted to see what could be accomplished
> without any kind of negotiation. What I came up with:
I had a read of your draft, and it's very nice. I have some specific
Why specify "no more than 1 per minute" for ICMP packets? This seems
kind of arbritrary.
Note that if you *required* some sort of KEEPALIVE on all locators
then it could help with poor middleboxes. :)
What does "in the absense of better knowledge" mean? Again, if you
required some sort of KEEPALIVE, then you could build an RTT-style
mechanism into the protocol.
I suggest that you recommend people *not* use the identifier address
as the regular address. It seems like a great potential source of
It might be better for a multihomed-aware but single-homed client to
use the same information for locator 1 and locator 2? As in, "prefix
from ISP A" and "prefix from ISP B" are the same. No special handling
would be needed on the multihomed server side then - it can merely use
the same algorithm for all clients.
"Note that multihomed communication without involvement from the DNS
isnt' psossible." overstates the case, and not really pertinent. I
suggest removing it.
I think there may be some security issue, in that a client can
generate packets to another client by sending a packet with the prefix
from a 3rd party in the multihomed client address. Haven't thought
too much about this....
This seems simple, and requires no new infrastructure. I like the
NAROS technique also because it abstracts a lot of decision making
(too much really from the current draft, IMHO). I'd be interested in
seeing the two work together in some way, esp. regarding server-side
- new draft
- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <email@example.com>