Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-vyncke-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-cookie

It's unclear if the solution space here is the same as for host IDs?  In
particular, that draft talks about "remote servers are not able to
distinguish between hosts sharing the same IP address" whereas here the
case is "remote servers are not able to distinguish that a single host uses
multiple IP addresses, some of which may be shared with other hosts".  In
particular, the multiple IP addresses in the multi-homing context may not
even be in the same administrative domain.

   Erik

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On 10/29/2014 8:08 AM, fred@cisco.com wrote:
> > A new draft has been posted, at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vyncke-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-cookie.
> Please take a look at it and comment.
>
> Under potential mitigations, is there a reason not to refer to the use
> of alternate (non-IP address) host IDs?
>
> E.g., as noted in RFC 6967 and
> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios.
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>