In your letter dated Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:08:01 +0900 you wrote:
Philip Homburg wrote:
I think the problem is that we don't know how to do 'proper' address
selection.
I know and it's trivially easy.
11 years ago in draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-00.txt, I wrote:
End systems (hosts) are end systems. To make the end to end principle
effectively work, the end systems must have all the available
knowledge to make decisions by the end systems themselves.
With regard to multihoming, when an end system want to communicate
with a multihomed end system, the end system must be able to select
most appropriate (based on the local information) destination address
of the multihomed end system.
which means an end system should have a full routing table, IGP
metrics in which tell the end system what is the best address of
its multihomed peer. Full routing table should and can, of course,
be small.
Even in the unlikely case that it would be feasible to give every host a
complete copy of the DFZ routing table... That still would leave a lot of
issues open...
1) End-to-end latency. Maybe some future generation BGP provides that, but
that doesn't help now.
2) For 6to4, the use of anycase. You probably need a link-state routing
protocol to allow a host to figure out which relays are going to be used on
a give path.
3) Filters in firewalls. I'd love to see a routing protocol that reports the
settings of all firewalls in the world :-)
4) Other performance metrics, like jitter, packets loss, etc.
Maybe you can do some experiments and report on how well your draft works for
deciding when to prefer a 6to4 address over IPv4.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf