I'm just catching up on the recent drafts, so apologies if this has been covered...
1. It seems like RFC 6724 will need to be updated by dmm-ondemand-mobility. I'm unclear on how the algorithm should be modified. Has anyone worked this out? My sense is that Rule 4 needs to be modified to consider the new flags. Either this document should spell out the new algorithm, or we plan for RFC6724bis. 2. Regarding the language about IPV6_PREFER_SRC_HOME and IPV6_PREFER_SRC_COA with legacy applications, I think it would be right to continue to support these. PREFER_SRC_HOME could ask the network for FIXED, but automatically fall back to another address. I think this is useful so that the application doesn't have to handle EAI_REQUIREDIPNOTSUPPORTED and try again. (This comment goes back to point 1.) 3. I don't understand the need for IPV6_REQUIRE_NON-PERSISTENT_IP as an explicit flag. I would think it works better to provide this behavior if neither of the other flags are set. Literally it says, "I will not accept a FIXED or SESSION_LASTING IP". Is that useful? It can be provided, but I don't think any app would use it. Maybe just for testing the network? 4. Consider an appendix showing source code for clients and servers with different requirements. E.g., I believe that the setsockopt() needs to be done after socket() but before bind(), connect(), send(), sendmsg(), sendmmsg(), sendto(),etc. (After any packets are sent is too late.) I think it would be useful to show this recipe. 5. Are there new errors from bind(), listen() or connect(), etc.? E.g., socket option is FIXED, but user explicitly specified a COA address to bind to? David Dolson Senior Software Architect, Sandvine Inc.
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
