> But this is just an operational procedure, which needs to be stated in > the multihoming solution documents, but something that IMHO must not > be added to the ICMPv6 spec, as it's really out of scope from ICMP > perspective.
I agree with Pekka. The purpose of the ICMPv6 document is to reserve the code and define the format. As Marcelo said, the MH code can work with this code and format. Let's just go with it. I understand Marcelo's concern. He (and I) would like to make life as good as possible for hosts in multi-homed sites. This will require operational rules for hosts and for routers. As I mentioned in a previous message, the code definition is a nice first step. It tells the host that it should try another source address. It is only a first step, because it does not tell which one. The host will have to use some heuristic. In some cases, e.g. when there are just two addresses, the heuristic is trivial. In more complex cases, having more information might help. But it may be a bit early to determine how this information should be passed. We could pass it in ICMP messages, but we could just as well use a yet-to-be-defined information protocol associating exit routers with allowed prefixes, or even let hosts use some cached knowledge from previous connections. Given the wide choices, I would rather not try to mess around with the ICMPv6 specification. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
