James, >>> However notionally easy this problem is to address, I imagine that >>> practical matters, at some point, must rise to the top of the pile of >>> points to consider. >> >> Those hosts are broken. They can't work in a multi-homed environment. > > Those hosts are not broken. They work fine in single-homed edge networks, > which are ubiquitous. The deployment of multiple heterogenous default > routers with hosts that expect networks to be single-homed is what breaks the > network.
given dual stack. all hosts are multi-homed. multiple prefixes and multiple default routers have been part of the IPv6 design from day 1. > Also, rule 5.5 of RFC 6724 is inadequate. Hosts that implement it should > work better than those that don't because new flows created after the primary > default router becomes unreachable should automatically go to the next > available default router, but existing flows will still be broken in the > absence of the kind of coordination I described previously. arguing from a standards perspective (not what implementations do). I don't think any of our documents describe a "primary default router". given we have: RFC4861, RFC4311, RFC4191 and RFC6724 what is missing? combined with happy eyeballs of course. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
