Brain,
Looks like we have a teminology issue. Notice I did not say routing
system but ROUTING will have problem. Because the choice of a
multi-addressed host to use one of its IP address to include in
packet header implies routing decision, the host, in effect, does
some routing decision making. How a host intellegently choose the
ip address as the source address to send packets or DNS intellegently
choosing an ip address for a query are complex issues which we do not
have an answer for as you indicated in your message.
So I disagree with those who think it's not a problem in the Internet
where majority of hosts with multiple addresses.
--Jessica
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from mail.nyp.ans.net (mail.nyp.ans.net [147.225.190.25])
by cannes.aa.ans.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA06541
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:23:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com [194.196.110.15])
by mail.nyp.ans.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22538
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:23:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com [9.20.45.21]) by
mail-gw.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA64234; Mon, 13 Dec
1999 22:22:01 GMT
Received: from hursley.ibm.com (gsine02.us.sine.ibm.com [9.14.6.42]) by
sp3at21.hursley.ibm.com (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA21994; Mon, 13 Dec
1999 22:21:59 GMT
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:05:48 -0600
From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: IBM
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jessica Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Length: 2452
Jessica,
I don't think this is a problem for the routing system. It will deliver to
whatever destination address is in the packet. The problem is for hosts
to choose which destination address to use when there is a choice,
and ditto for the source address.
I don't agree with those who see this as asking the host to guess at
routing decisions. However, it's a complex topic that is already
an active work item in the IPNG WG.
Brian
Jessica Yu wrote:
>
> You seem to disagree with my statement of "routing may not be adequate."
> in the Internet where majority of the hosts with multiple IP addresses.
>
> Do you really believe that there is an adequate support for the routing
> issue described below in majority-hosts-with-multiple-ip-addresses
> environment?
>
> --Jessica
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:49:57 EST
> To: Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc: Jessica Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Sean Doran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
>
> Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
> In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:32:18 EST."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 913
>
> > > There is also a potential scaling issue of using multiple addresses
> > > as general purpose multihomging mechanism. This is because if this
> > > is the case, most of the Internet hosts will end up with multiple
> > > addresses.
> >
> > I don't see why this is inherently a problem.
>
> it's a problem because it's essentially asking the sending host to do
> routing in the absence of any routing information.
>
> if multiple addresses are available for a host, the chances are good
> that the paths associated with some of those addresses are significantly
> better, or worse, than others. with IPv4 multihoming, the routing system
> sorts out which path to use. this doesn't work perfectly but at least
> the decision is made in light of some information about the nature and
> current state of those paths. with IPv6 multihoming, the sending host is
> just guessing. it's difficult to believe that this will work well.
------- End of Forwarded Message
