[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: revision of architecture draft is now published
El 02/07/2004, a las 7:26, Geoff Huston escribió:
although my concerns about traffic engineering remain.
I recognise that its in the RFC3582 goal set, but I still have the
concern that "The consideration here appears to be that hosts need
much more information at hand if they are to make locator address
selection decisions based on some form of metric of relative load
currently being imposed on select components of a number of end-to end
network paths, and it raises the entire issue of Traffic Engineering
being a network function independent of host function or an outcome of
host interaction with the network, and if the host is to interact with
the network how is this interaction to be signalled?"
Ok, i agree with your point here.
perhaps we have a terminology problem here....
My intention about the TE capabilities of a mh are much more modest
than selecting paths according to the current load. I think that a
multihoming solution should allow the site to express some sort of
preferences about which path to use, both for incoming and outgoing
traffic . I think that this capability is present in current IPv4
multihoming solution, and similar capabilities should be provided by
the IPv6 multihomig solution.
I think that this is a reasonable goal, and that we should analyze
different alternatives (if any) to provide it. Perhaps we end up
concluding that the TE capabilities of the IPv6 multihoming solution
are very limited (and that they will not match current IPv4 multihoming
TE capabilities), but i think that this should be conclusion after
analysing the possibilities and the tradeoffs, hence my opinion that
this should be part of the analysis.