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

On 10/30/2014 3:22 PM, Erik Nygren wrote:
> 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". 

Yes, the role of client and server is reversed, but in both cases the
issue is the same:

	a single host using multiple IP addresses

The key issue for this doc is that the addresses are IPv4 and IPv6, but
the potential solutions remain relevant, AFAICT.

> In particular, the multiple IP addresses in the multi-homing
> context may not even be in the same administrative domain.

That affects *some* of the solutions, but not all.

Joe

> 
>    Erik
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu
> <mailto:touch@isi.edu>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 10/29/2014 8:08 AM, fred@cisco.com <mailto: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 <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 