Subject: Re: FWD: Comments on draft-ietf-svrloc-ipv6-06.txt (Fwd)

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:11:14 -0800 (PST)

ErikN,

I also didn't see your comments show up on the srvloc list. These are good 
points, though. One comment:

>In addition, the section needs to clarify the issues for multihomed
>and multi-sited nodes (nodes connected to different sites) but
>there is no need to forbid the DA or SA to be multihomed.
>The constraint on multihomed and multi-sited nodes is that
>a service: URL with a literal IPv6 address that is less than global scope
>can only be advertised to the site (for site-local) or link (for link-local)
>over which the IPv6 address was learned.
> 

This issue arises with SLP for IPv4 as well, but perhaps
not as acutely. A DA on a multihomed host could be set up such that 
UAs on a subnet connected to an interface can get a URL advertised by an SA
on a subnet connected to another interface that is not routed to the first
interface, because the DA is listening to both interfaces. Thus, while the UA 
can obtain the URL, it can't actually access the service. RFC 2608 is silent
about this issue. 

If and when we recharter the working group to work toward draft standard
status for SLP, I think the RFC needs to include clarifying language on
this.

		jak