[40914] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi-homing fixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Larry Sheldon)
Sat Aug 25 13:02:57 2001
From: Larry Sheldon <lsheldon@creighton.edu>
Message-Id: <200108251702.MAA11917@bluejay.creighton.edu>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:02:33 CDT
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > 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.
Well, yes.
But I thought the thread was talking about multi-homed _networks_,
which I take to be a different problem from multi-homed _hosts_.
Am I in over my head again?
