Hi Bill, / RFC 1887 4.4.2 is obviously not functional with *currently deployed / network stacks*. It would need the kind of software described in / strategy B or H in order to be viable. Or do you disagree?
It depends. This solution needs SA routing towards DFZ (like my BRDP Based Routing proposal). Maybe lack of easy_to_manage_PBR / automatic PBR is the main reason that this option is not used that much. Easy to fix!! As mentioned earlier, I experience renumbering each day. And I *am* reachable. So examples of "kind of software" is available and massively deployed. www.ietf.org / www.irtf.org are accessible using PA addresses:-). Hosted servers can provide high availability. And it is not that difficult to make servers PA multi-homing. I see two concerns: 1: Support for changing ISP (multi-homing with slow renumbering) 2: Support for session continuity when link to ISP fails Only 2 is hard to fulfill without upgrading host stacks. But I doubt if many of us need this. I do not think mobility should be handled by the routing system. We have protocols for this (MIP6). So I would say: some of us need an upgraded network stack. We have already two solutions (HIP & Shim6) (use your sshagentd for this?). Problem here is, solutions need updated stack on corresponding node. / > On Strategy B and H: / > I think the difference of the two strategies is minor. Make methods / A2a and / > A2b for these? / / I vacillated on that for a while and eventually came down on the side / of calling it a different strategy. I think if the difference was / truly minor, IPv6 would have worked out a whole lot better than it / has. Maybe this can be corrected. Do you really think the Internet would work a whole lot better if we go for this strategy? I am with you!! / > And on the criticisms: / > With B: Why would LOCs be constantly in flux? Fixing this should be / part of / > the strategy. / / Because link state changes on the nearby upstream path are satisfied / by renumbering instead of rerouting. When I said "dynamic," I really / really meant it. / / Actually, that's not strictly true. You'd reroute for a few minutes, / long enough to be sure the state change wasn't ephemeral. Then you'd / renumber and on completion discontinue the exception route. That's / because renumbering looks like a distance-vector protocol; I can't / think of a way to describe it as a faster link-state protocol. DV can distribute triggered updates quite fast. BRDP supports this. In some cases, DV is faster than LS. When a link is flapping, why using the prefix that comes along with it? We need metrics & hysteresis for address assignment and SA selection, just as we have in routing. All part of BRDP (better described in next versions). In a MANET, this is mandatory for obvious reasons. Teco. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
