Subject: Re: a response to "A Simple Solution for IPv6 Multihoming"

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:02:11 -0400 (EDT)

Jim Bound <[email-masked]> wrote:

|Lastly if you get to the point where one wants to swap IPv6 addresses on
|the fly discussion DO NOT ASSUME you have a valid solution if it does
|not address UDP and the affect to the APIs that are listening for
|connects on sockets.   But I doubt you will have time to go here.

Just wondering if this is a reference to my proposal, since it was the
most recent mention of swapping addresses (well, really swapping addresses
and identifiers)?  If so, I just want to mention again that it is totally
transparent to all the upper protocols including UDP and it has no effect
on the listening APIs.

				Dan Lanciani
				[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 13:05:08 -0400

>transparent to all the upper protocols including UDP and it has no effect

No.  It is not to any specific proposal.

What is the draft name of your proposal?  I have about 60 specs to pull
over and a bit behind?

In Ipv6 we don't have identifiers.  So that will be interesting to
understand what you mean.  We do have addresses though?

If anyone wants to swap the IP address and fake out the upper layers
that is bogus but I will reiterate further if I see such an idea.
We have permitted that with mobile IPv6 but that is because of ingress
filtering.  Doing this in an IP stack implementation is like running
your care with the wrong oil weight for different seasons.

/jim

/jim