Re: GSE IDs [Re: IETF multihoming powder: just add IPv6 and stir]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On vrijdag, mei 9, 2003, at 01:08 Europe/Amsterdam, Tony Li wrote:

> I would prefer that we avoided having a stateful mapping mechanism.
It all flows from having more than one address with different 
reachability properties. At some point, someone has to decide which 
address to use for a particular purpose, and it had better be the 
"right" address most of the time or we're worse off than being 
single-homed.

> It's unnecessary and certainly more complication than we need.
It doesn't have to be complicated: something as simple as publishing 
all the addresses in the DNS and/or in an option in the first packet 
along with a simple algorithm that figures out which address seems to 
be working best is all we need. (But it may not be all we want.)

What kind of stateless mechanism do you have in mind? Obviously a 
stateless solution would be preferable over a stateful one.

> I would also prefer that we not proclaim something to be GSE that
> isn't, regardless of congruence or continuation of ideas.
I did use the term "GSE" a bit loosely a week or so ago but rest 
assured that this won't happen in the final version of the draft.