[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GSE

Iljitsch,


Yes, it does that. But it doesn't give the multihomer transparent
failover (or even failover of any kind). I'm sure that once we agree on
the requirements GSE can't meet them.  :-)
The draft was short on specifics for failover, as I recall, but so long as you had some connectivity between gateways it should have been possible to failover in a stateless way. As to TCP I personally would have only used the lower 64 for the pseudo-header, just as with HIP you would use the HIT. The big deal is that the host implementation would need to understand that the upper half and lower half would have to be processed quite differently.



- how can we make the lower 64 bits of the address globally unique



The same way we do with 32 bits.


Exit stateless autoconfig... I'm not even mentioning security.
I suspect we differ substantially on where we think requirements should go. Stateless autoconfig isn't my top feature requirement. Scaling to more robust connectivity is. There was an "analysis" of GSE security. However, Steve Bellovin didn't agree with it. I do not recall the specifics.

This is not to say that GSE had all the answers. It needed work. For instance, route selection and failover did need some amount of fleshing out. But I believe it suffered a premature death.

Eliot