Re: [IPv6] RFC 6724 shouldn't prefer partial reachability over reachability

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Kyle,

> Covered most of this in 7157. Including signaling policy to hosts. Good to know. I'll read that in-full.
> 
> In your straw man implementation try implementing an application using the BSD socket API and make sessions survive any set of failures along the two paths. Well, try with any networking api actually.  :-)
> 
> This is mobility, and I regard mobility as an unsolved problem, and one that is potentially too complicated to solve transparently (witness: LISP). In a failover scenario, I assume all connections tied to the now-down path (e.g., through provider-delegated addresses) are broken. That's fine for the use cases I am concerned about. Past some point, I'm okay with applications having to take basic remediation measures, like reconnecting, as long as that works more-or-less immediately.

Problems are overlapping, but I’m talking about multi-homing.
With MPMH today, I’d suspect a good part of hosts wouldn’t fail over at all.
Little point in doing multihoming if it doesn’t improve resiliency, increase bandwidth, etc.
I’m all for implementations improving regarding Rule 5.5. and applications becoming resilient against connection failure (which is also needed for NAPT44).

Connection survivability is not possible with MHMP (nor NPTv6, nor NAPT44). So we need applications to improve regardless.

What I’m arguing against is touting MPMH as a solution for multi-homing for small networks.

It would be interesting to bring up a more comprehensive test lab to figure out what works or not. But it would be quite the project.

O.