nanog mailing list archives
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 05:31:23 -0400
Mike Leber wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Joe Maimon wrote: For example, if your goal was to have TCP-like sessions between identifiers survive network events without globally propagating full network topology information about your site (the gripe against classic IPv4 BGP) you could have multiple locators associated with any single identifier sort of like the same way you can have multiple A records for adomain name.
Real world shows that that doesnt work very well. Multiple A records is not usuable practicaly speaking for anything other than load balancing, today.
DNS is a good example of something that was designed that way, but few people rely on common implementations actualy performing it properly.If the location layer session times out then it would try the other locators listed (pick a method of selection) and if it suceeded would resume the session transparent to the identifier layer. Design the timeout and retransmit algorithm and parameters to achieve the convergence times of your choice.
You would need a new protocol stack on the hosts at both ends of connections. By common convention classic TCP hosts could be told to use one of the locators (a transition hack, or just run the protocols in parallel). No change would be required to the network, and existing TCP could continue to be supported (no flag day).
Appears to me thats what shim6 is (cursory reading + nanog discussions)
Of course support of this new protocol would be limited to the clients and servers that chose to implement it, however this is no less than the change required for IPv6 which some hoped would solve the multihoming problem (possibly defined as scalably supporting network topology change without sessions being interrupted).
Long story short, seperating endpoint/locator does nothing to allow multiple paths to a single IP6 address/prefix to scale.
Current thread:
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news), (continued)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Joe Maimon (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Joe Maimon (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Paul Jakma (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Paul Jakma (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Paul Vixie (Oct 18)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Michael . Dillon (Oct 18)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Mike Leber (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Joe Maimon (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Mike Leber (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 16)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Per Heldal (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Per Heldal (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Mikael Abrahamsson (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Fred Baker (Oct 17)