> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Brim [mailto:swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:53 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Iljitsch van Beijnum'; 'IAB'; 'IETF > Discussion Mailing List'; 'Lixia Zhang' > Subject: Re: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00 > > Dan Wing allegedly wrote on 03 22 2009 10:09 AM: > >>> When one of these NATs goes down, active connections will be > >>> lost, but IGP routing will switch users automatically to a > >>> different NAT when they retry. > >> > >> If you allow your hosts to use multiple connection points into the > >> Internet, and external routing changes so that the packets they > >> send go out different connection points, their apparent source > >> address can change. One of the requirements for effective use of > >> NAT and multihoming is that your hosts' peers need to handle this > >> (via Multipath, HIP, MIP, SCTP or whatever). That is, you can't > >> allow your hosts to use multiple connection points until everyone > >> _else_ they talk to has been upgraded. How will you know when that > >> is? > > > > A host knows if it is using HIP, MIP, or SCTP to communicate with > > another host. > > I was asking how the site knows when its hosts peers have > been upgraded, > so that it can allow their traffic to be routed out multiple > interfaces. Thinking out loud, I posit that IPv6 route headers might be useful to steer traffic to a specific NAT66, until the host indicates (to the network) that it doesn't need such steering. There are undoubtedly other techniques. -d > > FYI, there is also a new idea for Mobile DTLS which > > provides similar address mobility, draft-barrett-mobile-dtls-00.txt. > > Yes but that should be a different thread. > > Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf