Ole, On 16/11/2012 09:28, Ole Trøan wrote: > 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.
I think a unified explanation of the best current practice is missing. Also there is that MAY in 6724 that I mentioned earlier, which seems weak in view of the discussion here. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
