RE: draft-baker-6man-multiprefix-default-route-00.txt is a newdraft

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Carlson [mailto:james.d.carlson@sun.com] 

> I don't agree that those OSes "screw up royally."  They are, in fact,
> doing what their users *tell* them to do.
> 
> If an application binds the source address on Subnet B and then sends
> a packet with a destination address that's either best reached or
> *only* reachable over Subnet A, then what's the system to do?

I think that Fred's draft tries to prevent applications from making such
mistakes. Seems to me that whether the host is dual-homed on two
separate interfaces, or multi-homed on various IP subnets on the same
physical wire as Fred's draft discusses, is not all that different.

> I agree that the underlying problem is common and one worth solving,
> but I think doing so needs optional OS features to allow the user to
> specify which expectations can be violated and under what conditions.
> That sounds vaguely outside the normal IETF boundaries to me.
> 
> (The underlying problem is, to me, just a lack of reasonable routing
> policies.  If a site is multihomed like that, then, at least in a
> perfect world, both ISPs would know about _both_ subnets in use, and
> that the same customer has a legitimate claim on both.)
> 
> > I agree that calling this "source routing." or anything 
> similar, would
> > be misleading.
> 
> It *is* making packet routing decisions based on the source address.
> Perhaps that's not exactly the same as "source routing" used in other
> contexts, but for the first hop, it's the same thing.

I'll concede your point on the first hop.

Bert

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------