Op 14 nov. 2012, om 16:58 heeft Michael Thomas het volgende geschreven: > On 11/14/2012 07:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> >> BTW, a little more on that topic: the reason that two DHCP servers on the >> same wire broke Jim's network in a flaky way is that IPv4 doesn't handle the >> multi-homing case. IPv6 deliberately places the multi-homing case >> in-scope. This creates a bit of a problem for legacy apps that do not >> support multi-homing, but it also creates the winning situation that if one >> device is advertising a provisioning domain that doesn't work, applications >> that do correctly handle multi-homing will simply use a different >> provisioning domain. >> > > I'm guessing the main problem wasn't multihoming per se: they were both > probably giving out 192.168 addresses, which would be a problem in v6 > were it to happen too. And of course even if they didn't collide, it could > still be a problem if the rogue dhc were pointing the host to a router that > doesn't have the route the dhc says it does.
I say the routers do run a protocol that support multihoming. The current direction is routing based on source and destination address (or destination and source, order is less important here). Hosts may send packets to whatever router. It is important that correct interface is selected. This is a MIF topic. > > But the real question I have is: what constitutes a "legacy app"? How > do I know if I've written one or not? More important: how to write non-legacy apps that do provide the more enhanced robustness. Or upgrade the stack, as mptcp. Teco > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
