Consensus on MHAP/v6 Multi-homing

[marcelo bagnulo braun]

El 20/04/2005, a las 17:14, Jeroen Massar escribió:

> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 16:50 +0200, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>>>   It doesn't help for
>>>> example with DNS where you want multipath over x providers.
>>>
>>> Most likely shim6 will depend on some sort of directory and this
>>> directory will not be able to live easily inside a shim area.
>>>
>>
>> i fail to see what directory are you talking about here...
>> I mean AFAIU, shim will use the DNS to obtain addresses, just as it is
>> done today, no changes to that, or are you thinking about other
>> directory service?
>
> DNS can be seen as a 'directory of DNS labels'. Just like the phonebook
> is one for telephone numbers, yellowpages for people etc.
>
> It can be DNS, but it can also be something else. As such you will not
> be able to multihome your directory server easily as then you will have
> cyclic dependency. (Beth: "where is Anna?", "Ask Anna where Anna is")
>

agree
but i guess that DNS servers won't be using shim to obtain multihoming 
support, but they will use the DNS protocol redundancy features instead 
(multiple records with the different addresses available for the 
server) (besides, doesn't make much sense to run a 4 way handshake to 
exchange a single packet DNS query i guess)

>>> Fun part is that people will most likely want rapid updates for their
>>> shim6-mappings, at a certain point one will then simply have an 
>>> overlay
>>> BGP network with all the routes in it too. One can drop the ASPATH
>>> partially then though, one only needs it to check for loops.
>>>
>>
>> I fail to understand what are considering here... The changes in the
>> locator set of a shim context will be done through the shim protocol
>> between the end nodes involved in the communication, right? so, what 
>> is
>> BGP and overlay come into this?
>
> The shim protocol will be just like running automatic BGP between 2
> peers.

that may be a bit of an overkill for a view :-)
I guess it will be much simpler than BGP, but who knows

>  But I'll first have to see the proposal of such a protocol.
> In the mean time I already a have a version of the shim which can be
> feed using a userspace daemon which mappings it is supposed to have.
> The source of the daemon is undetermined though but that is why it has
> an open API.
>
> overlay -> because you would get a 'core' network which does not see 
> the
> shim6 /48's, and this networks gets overlayed over the existing 
> network.
> (Which many people won't like and won't favor and thus won't accept)
>

agree

regards, marcelo


> Greets,
>  Jeroen
>