Hi Brian,
I think this topic is interesting indeed and i share Geoff feeling about
complexity, but let me ask a bit more about this:
El 20/10/2005, a las 15:08, Brian E Carpenter escribió:
There's quite a lot in the draft about how preferences are communicated
and very little about where they come from. draft-ietf-shim6-arch-00.txt
doesn't help with this either. Somewhere, I think we need a list
of possible sources of these preferences, and dynamic or static TE policy
needs to be in that list.
what sources do you have in mind here?
- i can clearly see that local preferences like the local admin setting
the local policy table to prefer some addresses over the others would
make sense. This would basically affect the selection of source
addresses and destiantions addresses used as ulids, as in the policy
table of rfc3484 and hence the locator used until a failure occurs. In
addition, a similar mechanism could be available for following locators
(after an outage)
- however, there seems to be other players that may want to also
influence in the preferences i.e. to be a source of preferences, in
particular, the peer. The peer can convey preferences about which
locators it want to use (this would only affect locators after a
rehoming event, since these preferences are conveyed once the session is
established so they are not good for selecting the initial
ulids/locators) (i can see some value on this, depending on the
scenario, as it has been discussed here)
Now, are you also considering here the isps as possible sources for
preference settings on a shim6 host? i mean, do you think that transit
provider should have the possibility to inform the shim hosts about what
locators it prefers?