[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: On the use of multiple PA prefixes or a single PI prefix for IPv6 multihoming



john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
Iljitsh,



Avoiding non-working paths goes to the core of what's multihoming all about, so this is something we absolutely need. But I'm not sure it's all we need. What I'm worried about is the situation where there are multiple working paths, but there is a large difference in quality between them. For instance, one path has a capacity of 100 Mbps and another a capacity of 1 Mbps. In this case, selecting the latter path as part of regular operation would hardly be acceptable.

We _may_ be able to bring this problem back to manageable proportions by taking advantage of the information both ends have. So if either end knows that the second path is much slower, they'll avoid it as long as the first path is operational. This leaves only the cases where there is congestion in the core, which is pretty rare these days. (But this hasn't always been the case...)


So, it seems like the problem might be moving into a general path selection problem, which can be used for many things than just multihoming. I'm not completely opposed to this, but want to warn that there are a lot of details that will not be so simple. Perhaps we need to scope this problem pretty well before going down this path.

In terms of 'best' path, I can think of lots of factors - latency, bandwidth,
most active, least active, lowest cost and so on.  Possibly selecting
a path based on the various combinations of the above for 2 endpoints
seems fairly challenging, so I'm not so optimistic that this is a solvable
problem in the short term.


Note that the whole reachability detection problem isn't as simple as it may seem at first, especially when we want to make use of unidirectional paths. Until not very long ago, I was favoring a "cartesian ping bomb" approach where there are reachability probes for all { src, dst } combinations. However, this can cause massive congestion when a link fails for a busy site, and it's also complex and most likely slow.


Agreed.  Even if you did this, then you would need some sort of mechanism
to evaluate the paths after determining reachability. I know some people
have discussed a next generation trace route that would collect statistics
about the hops along a particular path.  Put that onto your "cartesian ping bomb"
and you might have a solution, but at what cost?

It seems to me that this is one of those separable functional components we've been talking about, i.e. the one that triggers a multihoming event. In Version 1 that component would issue a trigger when connectivity vanishes for more than N seconds; in version 2 it might do so when QOS drops below some threshold for more than N seconds; in version 3 it might do so when observed QOS drops below presumed QOS for an alternative path for more than N seconds. The critical interface to be standardized isn't any of that; it's the "trigger multihoming now" protocol or API, IMHO.

    Brian