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

Re: comments on draft-ietf-shim6-proto-05.txt



Hi Harold,

El 02/11/2006, a las 11:43, Harold Grovesteen escribió:



the assumption here is that there is no situation of merging hosts,
meaning that if two contexts are initiated with a disjoint set of
locators, they will remain disjoint during the lifetiem of the context, and the situation where two contexts have disjoint sets and then later on one of them adds new locators that interject with another previously disjoint context is not supported. This is what the above assumption is
expressing... makes sense?

How does this assumption relate to various host-based load-balancing and fail-over designs that currently depend upon a single IPv4 address for a set of services?

i am not sure i fully understand your comment here...

In the shim6 scenario, a multihomed site obtains multiple PA prefixes, one per provider, so hosts within the multihomed site obtain multiple addresses, again one per provider. So, this is implies that selecting one address for using in a communication determines the ISP used for routing these packets. So, load sharing mechanisms would rely in using different addresses so that packets flow through different providers.

would this clarify your question?

regards, marcelo


Is there a need for server-side host-to-host coordination of locators ala VRRP or similar mechanisms?

Since the multi-homing direction was determined in the multi6 WG, for various reasons, I have not followed the minute details of protocol development. So, if this has been discussed elsewhere, a simple pointer will suffice to bring me upto speed.

Thanks,
Harold Grovesteen