RE: Architectural approaches to multi6

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

The way I see it, applications are evolving to use IP addresses more,
not less. There are many reasons, such as the flakiness of the DNS
resolution process, but there are also many applications (or transports)
that actually want to reason over IP addresses in an attempt to control
or organize network usage. In a multi-homing scenario, applications are
likely to treat the address on the GPRS interface different from the
Wifi or the Ethernet interface; they also will want to know whether they
need to open the firewall to reach a specific address, etc. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bound, Jim [mailto:Jim.Bound@hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:32 AM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> 
> No one uses FQDN's above IP till one gets to the Application layer.
Why
> do you say this?
> 
> Also we need a solution that does not assume this at all.  Doing this
> would at best be nice to have long term.
> 
> THere is also no way to enforce it.
> 
> /jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:25 PM
> > To: Brian E Carpenter
> > Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Architectural approaches to multi6
> >
> >
> > On dinsdag, maa 25, 2003, at 17:14 Europe/Amsterdam, Brian E
> > Carpenter
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>>> 3: remove addresses from all places in the protocol
> > stack above the
> > >>>> IP
> > >>>>    layer. If higher layers are unaware of addresses and the
> > >>>> addresses
> > >>>>    follow the topology, IP can route around failures by
changing
> > >>>>    addresses.
> >
> > > We've been preaching against exposing addresses above the
transport
> > > layer since RFC 1900 (dated 1996) at least. Little has
> > changed in the
> > > real world.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, most people/applications use names rather than
> > addresses most of the time. The trouble is that protocols such as
TCP
> > use the addresses in the IP header in their processing. If we make
> > these protocols look at something else (the FQDN, an address
> > that's not
> > in the IP header, ...) we are free to change addresses at any time
> > without breaking sessions.
> >
> > >> And I have reason to believe transition won't be as hard as it
may
> > >> seem
> > >> at first glance.
> >
> > > Not sure I understand that statement.
> >
> > Changing all references to addresses everywhere except in the
> > IP layer
> > is a huge undertaking. However, I think multihoming benefits can be
> > achieved before this process has been completed.
> >
> >
> >
>