RE: administrivia (on avoiding injury)

[Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>]

Nigel,

I knew that but was trying to provide same ability to end node
implementations without them having to run routing protocols on their end
nodes. I don't think phones and other IPv6 small devices should have to
run BGP et al to learn of link failures.  All IPv6 nodes MUST support ND
and why I took that path as a brainstorm idea and its pretty lightweight
and fast.

/jim

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Nigel Bragg wrote:

> > -----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
> 
>