Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Huegen;

> > If an address of an end system is known, reverse and forward DNS look
> > up gives all the addresses of the end system.
> 
> As an enterprise network operator I do not have reasonable policy controls
> when path selection is performed by the originating host's selection of
> source and destination addresses from the system's set of source addresses
> and the destination's set of DNS-registered addresses.
> 
> DNS as a routing policy specification language seems inappropriate to me.

Your assumption that the originating host source and destination
for path selection is self contradictory.

Originating host can control forward path with proper selection
of destination.

There is no such issue of source address selection.

> I can accept some interaction between the host and network infrastructure
> in order to determine the best path to use to a multi-address destination
> host; however, we still run into the support issues associated with
> applying and maintaining several, multi-PA prefixes to tens of thousands
> of subnets.

In draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-02.txt, I wrote:

   Once a full routing table is available on all the end systems, it is
   easy for the end systems try all the destination addresses, from the
   most and to the least favorable ones, based on the routing metric.

   Note that end to end multihoming works with the separation between
   inter domain BGP and intra domain routing protocols, if BGP routers,
   based on domain policy, assign external routes preference values
   (metric) of intra domain routing protocols.

All we need is a RIP-like mechanism to distribute global routing table
with proper metric to all the hosts, to let the hosts control forward
pathes with proper selection of destinations.

Note that dumb hosts relying on intelligent default routers are the
first step for intelligent networking and is a major design flaw
of IPv6.

							Masataka Ohta