Hi Olivier,

Many thx for sharing this proposal. Three easy questions ..

1. Do you envision that IP:PORT pairs would be manually configured by the
operator ?

2. Do you envision that such addresses may span multiple servers ?

3. Isn't this a bit overlapping (or to say stronger replacing) function of
load balancers ?

Many thx,
R.




On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 5:03 PM Olivier Bonaventure <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear rtgwgers,
>
>
> A few years ago, the RTGWG adopted RFC8678 "Enterprise Multihoming Using
> Provider-Assigned IPv6 Addresses without Network Prefix Translation:
> Requirements and Solutions". From a routing viewpoint, using PA IPv6
> addresses in enterprise networks scales much better than using PI
> addresses and BGP to announce each enterprise prefix in the DFZ.
>
> An enterprise can easily use RFC8678 for its client hosts. Each host is
> assigned one IPv6 address per provider. Each host can select the best
> source address to reach a given server and with QUIC, the host can
> switch to another address when the selected one or the associated fails
> thanks to QUIC's connection migration.
>
> However, for enterprise servers, the situation is different. While
> RFC9000 supports client-initiated connection migrations, it does not
> allow a server that has several IPv6 addresses to announce them to its
> clients so that they can migrate to another server address in case the
> initial one fails.
>
> A recent draft, draft-piraux-quic-additional-addresses, proposes a
> simple extension to QUIC that enables a server to advertise the
> different addresses that it owns. This extension has applications for
> RFC8678 and also for other deployments were servers are attached to
> different subnetworks. It enables clients to migrate to any of the
> server's addresses if one of them becomes unreachable.
>
> Comments on
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-piraux-quic-additional-addresses-00.html
>
> are more than welcome
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Olivier Bonaventure
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>

Reply via email to