RE: modules of a mh solution (was RE: New multi6 draft: WIMP)

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

> I think there is an orthogonal issue to connection preservation.

Locator discovery for *initial* contact is orthogonal IMHO

Determinig which locator to use during the lifetime of a communication has
additional timing constraints that will probably require different
mechanisms than just the ones using for the initial contact, i guess

> A host
> needs to discover the set of addresses available to it. And it needs to
> have a basis for choosing one. It would be nice for host to have a
> discovery mechanism that did not involve manual configuration or running
> a routing protocol listener.

fully agree.
do you have in mind something different than just plain trial and error?
becuase i wouldn't want to modify external hosts, right?

>
> What other, near-term uses for multihoming are you suggesting that are
> a) important, and b) easier than any of the current proposals?

ingress filtering?

(supposing that by current proposals you mean proposals for preserving
established communications...)

>
> I'll comment that I think the discussion of multihoming gets distorted
> by treated mobility as an entirely separate topic.  Portions of each are
> entirely separate from the other.  However some portions do overlap. By
> pursuing them independently, we do not take advantage of the overlap.

Well, i guess that some mh solutions can be used to provide mobility support
but not all of them. For instance, i don't think that a solution like NOID
would address the mobility problem, since the dynamic of the locator set
changes is very slow because it is conditionated by the DNS timing

I mean, in multihoming the locator set is pretty fixed and changes rather
slowly, and probably a solution that doesn't not support changes in the
address set once that the asosciation has been established would be
acceptable, i guess.
this type of solution wouldn't be suitable to provide mobility support.

Regards, marcelo

>
> (Now, quite a few multi6 participants are also attending to mobility, in
> their proposals.  However the conceptual discussions on the list are
> nearly always and only about multihoming.)
>
> A final demure: merging two areas of interest can serve to dissipate the
> effort to solve either.  However I think this is not one of those cases.
>
>
> mb> Now, returning to the preservation of established
> communications, i think
> mb> that there is another module that i would include: locator selection
> mb> mechanisms.
>
> yes.
>
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>
>