Re: Middleboxes [Was: Flow label versus Extension header - protocol itself]

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

El 10/05/2005, a las 23:38, Erik Nordmark escribió:

> marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>
> > > But you need to given all the addresses to the host so that there 
> > > are redundant addresses available for it during initial 
> > > communication, don't you?
> >
> > yes, unless you are sure that you are communicating with a shim 
> > enabled peer (the peer or a middlebox in front of it) in which case 
> > you could use shim capabilities even for dealing with outages in the 
> > locator used for initial contact
>
> How would the DHCP server, when handing out address, know whether or 
> not the local host will communicate with a shim capable peer?
> The local host might communicate both with shim incapable peers and 
> with shim capable peers. In the first case it makes sense for the host 
> to know all its addresses with the hope that default address selection 
> and application retries finds a working address pair.

so far, so good

> In the second case the middlebox can help so it makes more sense (does 
> it?) to only give the host one address, which is part of a HBA/CGA set 
> maintained by the middlebox.

sorry, i have lost a bit of track here....

what was the problem with handing back to the non-shim capable host all 
the addresses of the HBA set?

I mean, the dhcp server gives all the addresses of the HBA set to the 
host, and the host can use any of them to establish a communication. 
The middle box will establish shim context for each different 
communication that uses different src dst iids


regards, marcelo