Subject: [mif] MIF and SCTP

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:34:17 +0200 (CEST)

Hello.

We've been having quite a lot of operational problems when using SCTP and 
vendors implementing destination based routing, meaning that for a dual 
NIC SCTP speaker each SCTP far end IP needs to have a separate static 
route out to the gw of each nic to get path redundancy (two default routes 
doesn't work as both SCTP legs will choose the same default route).

It'd be much more preferable to have two virtual routing tables with two 
default routes, and packets with each NIC source IP address was sent out 
using that NIC virtual routing table (policy routing).

>From reading the MIF documents this scenario is one that is part of the 
problem statement, but does MIF feel like it's going to give this specific 
SCTP case guidance in MIF, or is this needed to be taken up via the SCTP 
WG?

Perhaps I have missed that it already has been done, in that case I would 
greatly appreciate a pointer to a document I can hit our vendors over the 
head with.

Thanks.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:28:27 +0200

Mikael (Mike?),

If I understand correctly, you are looking for a way that your
transport function can control which interface a packet goes out on.
How to do that would be OS-specific.  When you suggest two routing
tables, I guess you want that because otherwise your OS won't know
that it's okay to send the packet out a particular interface at all.

It's not an SCTP problem -- it's a problem with SCTP's environment.  I
think you should send specific text for the MIF drafts, but about the
problem, not your proposed solution (since it is neither a problem nor
a current practice).

Scott

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:34, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> vendors implementing destination based routing, meaning that for a dual NIC
> SCTP speaker each SCTP far end IP needs to have a separate static route out
> to the gw of each nic to get path redundancy (two default routes doesn't
> work as both SCTP legs will choose the same default route).
>
> SCTP case guidance in MIF, or is this needed to be taken up via the SCTP WG?
>

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:47:45 +0200 (CEST)

> that it's okay to send the packet out a particular interface at all.

I want the multi-NIC host to use the strong host model.

> problem, not your proposed solution (since it is neither a problem nor

I can write text if someone can give guidance as to where my text might 
fit in.

It can be argued that my case is covered in 
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement-11.txt> 4.2, 
but it doesn't include the traffic separation case, only ingress filtering 
case.

Is this a good place to add text to?