RE: Simple dual homing experiment

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

I agree that exit selection (3.5) is more of a "nice to have" -- the real requirement is, try to achieve some load sharing so we do not get a gross misuse of the resource.
 
The reason for "should not break" rather than "must not break" is that in a similar set up today (e.g. main connection backed up by a DSL line), turning on backup actually breaks connections. Also, I am not confident that we can make sure that no connection will ever break, so "must" may well be slightly out of the reach of engineering.
 
By the way, your general observation is correct: David an I believe that most of the solution is actually fairly easy to engineer.
 
 

________________________________

From: Tony Li [mailto:Tony.Li@procket.com]
Sent: Wed 3/19/2003 8:22 PM
To: Christian Huitema; kurtis@kurtis.pp.se
Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Simple dual homing experiment




|    David and I wrote up a "simple dual homing" proposal, 
|    based on previous drafts and private conversations. This 
|    may be one of several ways of going forward in multi6. 


Christian, 

First, I don't believe that 3.5 is a real requirement.  It is 
not a problem that is solved today in any technology short of 
full blown traffic engineering.  While I agree that this would 
be valuable, I don't see how this really cuts it as a requirement. 

Of your other requirements, it would seem that they would all 
be addressed as long as: 

        1) routers which don't have a working exit don't advertise 
         default 
        2) hosts rotate their source (and destination) addresses 
           among the possible set 

Further, I would argue that your requirement for 3.4 isn't strong 
enough.  That the connection should NOT break. 

Comments? 

Tony