Re: [mif] MIF at the application level

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> but NICE is about how selecting address pairs, rather than just the
> local address, isn't it?
> 
> I mean, i would expect that selecting the local address to be a much
> simpler problem than selecting the address pair

The well known usage for NICE is to find the best route for NAT
traversal, but NICE is useful even without NAT.  In a MIF
environment without any NAT, NICE will find the correct local
address to use to reach a specific destination, and this without any
configuration.  Before NICE, people tried to find the best route by
trying to guess what type of NAT was in front of the host, which is
a problem that cannot be solved.  I feel that choosing the right
local address is a similar kind of problem that NICE can solve at
the application level.

The idea behind NICE is that the local address to use is the one
that have connectivity with the destination to reach.  That seems
obvious but that was kind of a new concept at the time (and kudos to
Jonathan for this work).

> 
> regards, marcelo
> 
> Marc Petit-Huguenin escribió:
>> I read the 4 documents listed in the agenda for the MIF BOF, and I
>> am surprised to see very few discussion about the application
>> behavior in presence of multiple interfaces.  The documents talk
>> mostly about operating system configuration but, in the spirit of
>> the end to end argument, I do think that the final decision on what
>> network to choose (when there is a choice) should be made by the
>> application, with fallback to some automatic configuration when the
>> application is not smart enough to do this.  NICE
>> (draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip) is a very good example on how an
>> application can choose between different networks and perhaps this
>> draft, that does not seem to be maintained currently, could be part
>> of the deliverables of the future MIF WG.
>>
>>   
> 


-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: [e-mail]
Work: [e-mail]