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

["Philipp S. Tiesel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On 21. Nov 2023, at 20:39, Kyle Rose <krose=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 2:30 PM Ole Trøan <otroan=[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 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).

Right. However, there are transport protocols like QUIC and MPTCP that can do it without too much hassle for the application.
I really prefer a mobility mechanism that is end to end and works on some devices now. instead of discussing about L3 mobility mechanisms we might or more likely might not getting deployed eventually. 

> 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.

Fully agreed.

AVE!
   Philipp