[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Usefulness of automating policy tables (was RE: draft-cpatel-ipv6-automated-policy-table-cfg-00.txt)



> If the order of the addresses matters to any significant degree, no matter
> who
> decides what that order is or what mechanism is used to set that ordering,
> it
> will hamper applications.  So I don't see it as useful to build mechanisms
> to
> allow sites to set that ordering.  It's solving the wrong problem, and it's
> encouraging people to try to juggle address ordering for whatever purpose
> they
> might think is useful, which in turn makes life for apps more difficult.

As you might have noticed, I have just started wading into the IPv6 waters.
This hard line view, considering that address selection in IPv6 is an rfc, was
quite unexpected. :-)

Can you refer me to any drafts/papers/emails/examples that illustrate the cons
of address selection? I have been through the archives, but apart from a lot
of arguments, I failed to find any examples that show the harm address
selection can cause vis--vis other methods.

> It is not acceptable to expect distributed apps to use DNS for lookups.
> DNS is too slow and too unreliable and too out of sync with the real world
> for some applications.

Ok. If your apps are using IP addresses, then they can use the same (dest)
address (and bypass address selection) from all locations and all will work as
usual. IMHO, modifying the precedence of the prefix in the policy tables
will/should not result in parts of the network becoming "not reachable".

CP




--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------