On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:19:42PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
One such technology possibly ripe for perversion is DNS. Another is mobile IP. Sure, these may not be great for the application right now, but they both share a key advantage, which is that the deployer pays (not the rest of the internet). Assuming the a fixed % of users multihome (and it's likely to increase), and assuming a fixed cost per prefix supported (OK, so that's likely to decrease), the costs are O(n) rather than O(n^2).
Do you *really* want your DNS TTL set down in the same range as the time for a BGP route fall-over?
Ever read RFC1123? It states: 2.3 Applications on Multihomed hosts When the remote host is multihomed, the name-to-address translation will return a list of alternative IP addresses. As specified in Section 6.1.3.4, this list should be in order of decreasing preference. Application protocol implementations SHOULD be prepared to try multiple addresses from the list until success is obtained. More specific requirements for SMTP are given in Section 5.3.4. When the local host is multihomed, a UDP-based request/response application SHOULD send the response with an IP source address that is the same as the specific destination address of the UDP request datagram. The "specific destination address" is defined in the "IP Addressing" section of the companion RFC [INTRO:1]. Similarly, a server application that opens multiple TCP connections to the same client SHOULD use the same local IP address for all. Unfortunately, many programs have chosen not to do this. -- Med venlig hilsen / Sincerely Andreas Plesner Jacobsen (Network Engineer) / Tiscali A/S (World Online) Peter Bangs Vej 26, DK-2000 Frederiksberg - http://www.tiscali.dk Tlf. +45 3814 7000 - Fax +45 3814 7007