RE: zeroconf draft

["Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)" <karen.e.nielsen@ericsson.com>]

Hi Pekka,

> 
> As noted in the message to Jordi, I'd be concerned if one would be 
> concerned about the amount of state, not the amount of traffic.
> 
> > Load balancing among multiple router weren't part of base IPv6, but
> > it may become so (<draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-02.txt>).
> > 
> > Load balancing could be good, whether its really required by this 
> > miminal function, I am not sure.
> 
> Just to be clear, I wasn't describing load-balancing as described in 
> draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-02.txt (which wouldn't 
> probably even 
> work nicely, at least if you don't make assumptions about the 
> solution).
> 
> I think the goal here is that you'll be able to deploy multiple
> "tunnel servers", and be able to somehow make some of the hosts to use
> tunnel server A, some B, others C.  You probably don't want all the
> hosts sharing the load equally among servers A to C (which is what the
> load sharing spec says).  

My mistake.

I was in fact thinking of the scenarios 
where different hosts deploys different
routers. 

>In short, this probably turns out as a 
> requirement for the auto-discovery of the tunnel server, as Jordi 
> noted, but it should be explicitly discussed.
> 
> (In other words, you're concerned of seamlessly being able to deploy 
> multiple tunnel servers to be able to support a larger amount of 
> tunnel end-points.)
> 

I agree that that load balancing could be inforced
by the endpoint discovery mechanism using standard mechs, e.g., round 
robin or advanced "active load measuring" mechanisms.

Personally I may still not be convinced that 
this is a strict requirement for zeroconf. 

I will register it as an open issue.

BR, Karen