Re: [Spud] FW: New Version Notification for draft-hildebrand-spud-prototype-02.txt

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> >Call me old-fashioned (or make me one, even better), but I believe it is
> easier here to use anycast IP addressing for the source addresses
>
> Did you mean the responder's (server's?) address here?  "Source" is a
> little confusing to me.
>
> ​Yes, I did, sorry for the lack of clarity.​



> >while allowing the tube-id to be used to dispatch to the right back end.
> In an SDN world, you might not even need that
> > to be in L, but in the baseline network elements matching tables.
>
> That doesn't sound old-fashioned to me at all. (I hope this message
> becomes the top Google hit for "good old-fashioned SDN", for example)
>
> I like the potential combinations of anycast, SDN, and tube-IDs as
> sub-addresses, though.  The responder probably needs to note the address
> that was used to reach it, and use that address as the source on it's
> outbound packets - sendmsg(2) allows for that on some systems.
>
> ​The critical thing about using tube-IDs as sub-addresses (or dispatch
tokens, if you prefer), is that the SDN system you're using has to see them
in the bits of the address it sees.  This, it turns out, may not be
trivial, though updates to the relevant standards to make it so are
possible.

Ted




> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
>
>
>