Subject: RE: [Mip6] Agenda for MIP6 at IETF58

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:49:31 -0000

> Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> [cut]
> >>>>> 2. Load sharing (ability to pick and switch Home Agents)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> transparently to the MN? Or does the MN need to know?  and does
this
> >>>> restrict backup HAs to be on the same link? And who needs to
initiate
> >>>> a switch? Totally under the HA's control, or should MN be
involved?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>> this is all open to discussion. the HAHA draft currently
> >>> has a solution for this. but we dont have to talk about
> >>> the solution in the draft yet.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I suspect that there are a bunch of tradeoffs here. It would be
> >> advantageous if everything is transparent to MNs (i.e., no protocol
> >> changes). But what are the limitations? Are some of them
significant?
> >> Talking about some of this (in fairly general terms) might be
useful.
> >
> >
> > agree that there would be tradeoffs. the MN continues to send
> > reverse tunneled packets to the Home Agent which just crashed.
> > it would be good if the MN can switch Home Agents. OTOH, if
> > the Home Agent, which took over, can proxy the address of the
> > Home Agent which crashed, then maybe we can do it transparently.
> 
> One mechanism which could be used for this, is
> if the advertised HA addresses were VRRP instances,
> and the hosts exchanged information about binding
> caches on other addresses.
> 
> Obviously, we're not up to talking about mechanisms yet,
> but it seems like this is a feasible thing to swap
> HAs with little or no MN knowledge.
> 

Hi Greg :)

We discussed that privately and since interest is raised, it's good to
start doing it in the open.

It will be good if HAHA can reuse as much as possible the thinking that
lead to existing protocols. 

- Sure, High Availability and load sharing can reuse some
HSRP/VRRP/netdispatcher ideas
- HA discovery (by other HAs) has a lot to do with existing hello
protocols
- HA discovery (by MN) could be based on anycast on the overall
aggregation. But alternatively, the HAs could return a list based on the
location of the careof as DNSes often do.
- The Predictive mode (in appendix, please read on) inherits from CARP.

It would be great to have people with related expertise join the
discussion :)

Pascal  

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6