Re: [IPv6] draft-buraglio-6man-rfc6724-update revision

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 1) Best Source / Destination address pair: can we choose the
    > destination address independently of the source (and of the route
    > ????), or do we need a global optimization?

No. And even if we could find the global optimum, devices will move and
networks will change, and we'll need to do it again.

Can we reboot SHIM6?
Can we do it with LISP instead?
QUIC.  I remember that SPUD BOF.

But, if we could publish a short RFC (is it a BCP?) that would help move one
step forward, then we should do that.    Will Apple, MS, Google and Ubuntu implement?

    > (assuming God's view): if we knew everything about which source address
    > can reach which destination address (but nothing about routing there
    > though) which pair would we pick?

We would rotate the shield frequencies so the BORG don't catch us :-)

    > and "happy eyeballs" compare / collaborate? Which responsibilities for
    > each?  4) Multihoming and SAS: Should the stack be aware of
    > multihoming? Should it do something like a RHx / tunnel to the
    > appropriate CE based on source selection?

Something in the stack need to know about multihoming, and it needs a OS-wide
view, and we need new "socket" APIs.  There was a talk two RIPEs ago about
efforts there.

    > I'll kick the thread off;

Actually, I think we need a virtual interim (design) meeting.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide