-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Bound [SMTP:seamus@bit-net.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 4:30 AM
To: Sean Doran
Cc: gmaxwell@martin.fl.us; ben@layer8.net; jabley-ietf@automagic.org; mrw@windriver.com; multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)
Just brain storming none of this is baked and SCTP is in good shape but
passing endpoints around at the API is still TBD for implementation. No
way ready to deploy except maybe for SIP, MEGACO, et al. But could be!!!
But...........
> Before you implement, please answer these three questions:
>
> | > Personally, I think it's reasonable to require a host change to switch to
> | > another prefix when there is link failure.
>
> World----ISPZ
> | |
> ISPA ISPB
> \ /
> site
> |
> host
>
> How does host detect a link failure between ISPB and ISPZ?
We have no way today. But this plays into other mail I just sent.
ISPB would send Neighbor Discovery (ND) link-broken-ISPZ to site and site
would send via ND host. This would trigger at IP layer (quickest fix)
that all packets to ISPZ would now go to ISPA.
------------------------------------------8<-----------------------------------------------
You can use the routing system unaltered to flag reachability failures
to the site's boundary router, by having each AS announce the prefix
covering its own address space downwards, and propagate similar
advertisements it receives.
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bragg-ipv6-multihoming-00.txt
describes; although thoughts on address allocation may have moved
on, I think the basic principle still works.
Nigel