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

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

By storing the end nodes in a routing header all other location can
change enroute.
This is completely stateless.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:49 AM
> To: Tony Li
> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: GSE IDs [Re: IETF multihoming powder: just add 
> IPv6 and stir]
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>