Subject: RE: Fwd: Minutes / Notes

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:23:35 -0400

> From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>

    > Unfortunately, we've put the IP address in the pseudo-header checksum,
    > so when your locator changes, your connection fails. .. 
    > Creating an identifier space is one way. Alternately, changing the
    > pseudo-header would be another, but we discarded that as being even
    > more unlikely.

Hmmm. Why would adding a new namespace be any easier than changing the TCP
checksum? In either event, if you're multihomed, and you want to interoperate
with hosts elsewhere, they have to be modified before you can talk to them.

Actually, this leads me to think. If interoperation with unmodified hosts is
important, then all this discussion about alternative namespaces to identify
endpoints is moot. At that point, there are precisely two mechanisms
available:

i) Use multiple addresses, and if the link whose address you're using for the
connction fails, the connection fails.

i) Wse multiple addresses, and if the link whose address you're using for the
connction fails, use MIPv6 mechanisms to divert it to a backup address.

Note that either of these can be used, and you can use whichever of these
fits your needs best. This does tend to fill Brian's suggestion that we have
a range of solutions available...

	Noel

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:15:40 +0200 (CEST)

> endpoints is moot. At that point, there are precisely two mechanisms

There is more flexibility if we e.g. introduce a new record type in the DNS
for the nodes that support the new mechanism (call it
an "ID", "WHO" or "WHICH" record if you'd like).
A multi6-aware node will look for such record and, if found, it can do the new
song and dance to get id/loc separation. If not found it falls back to
looking for AAAA.

  Erik