Subject: [RAM] End-user multihoming idea

From: Max Tulyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 01:26:27 +0200

Hi All,

I think it is a good idea to use DNS names as a kind of "route 
identifiers" for end-users. The only you need is two (or more) 
connections to different ISPs and specially crafted DNS server that 
generates non-cacheable (TTL=1) replies using extra data (i.e. source 
address of querier, channels load statistics, is the particular channel 
in use or broken now, etc).

It will be good enough for stable access to the site and services 
(www.foo.com, mail.foo.com, ...) with back-ups and load ballancing - the 
only thing most people expect from multihoming.

Yes, it doesn't help for hardcoded IP services, and established 
connections will be lost (but probably restores with new IP) when one of 
channels went down, but most of users will experience no problems at all.

-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:49:08 -0800

On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Max Tulyev wrote:

> identifiers" for end-users.

I understand your logic, but we can't count on DNS services being  
available due to a number of factors (misconfiguration, lack of DNS  
mappings, DDoS, etc.), nor can we just arbitrarily impose than kind  
of burden on the global DNS infrastructure.

Multihomed IP networks must function in the complete absence of any  
naming system at all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]> // 408.527.6376 voice

		All battles are perpetual.

     		   -- Milton Friedman

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 23:15:03 -0500

Folks, I think this is getting to detailed for now.  But if we go here I
will argue do not use DNS. But I won't do that now but just pointing it
out for the future how to engineering the solution architecture.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Tulyev [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 6:26 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [RAM] End-user multihoming idea
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I think it is a good idea to use DNS names as a kind of 
> "route identifiers" for end-users. The only you need is two 
> (or more) connections to different ISPs and specially crafted 
> DNS server that generates non-cacheable (TTL=1) replies using 
> extra data (i.e. source address of querier, channels load 
> statistics, is the particular channel in use or broken now, etc).
> 
> It will be good enough for stable access to the site and 
> services (www.foo.com, mail.foo.com, ...) with back-ups and 
> load ballancing - the only thing most people expect from multihoming.
> 
> Yes, it doesn't help for hardcoded IP services, and 
> established connections will be lost (but probably restores 
> with new IP) when one of channels went down, but most of 
> users will experience no problems at all.
> 
> --
> WBR,

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:28:21 +0100

Dear Max, Jim, and Roland,
I support Max and Jim, but Roland's too. The DNSS proposition I 
introduced last month was actually a DDDS, permitting to use the DNS 
existing infrastructure in order to resolve a dynamically computed 
route rather than an address. The pros:

1) the DNS front-end exists but nother is bound to the DNS, any other 
DDDS is OK
2) the mechanism is "super SHIM6" like: it actually consider a route 
rather than a simple multihoming
3) the well proven TTL system permits to cache a route and not to 
call on any system once the necessary first call has been carried 
out. In case of access failure the only thing to do is to erase the cache.
4) different DNSS servers can provide different routes for different 
relational spaces, or compute different routes based upon users' constraints.

At this stage this does not covers the semantic of a route 
description, nor the supervision function computing the route, nor 
the node/node links status description dissemination system to fed 
the supervisors' databases.
jfc

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 16:14:14 -0800

On Jan 6, 2007, at 3:28 PM, JFC Morfin wrote:

> The DNSS proposition I
> introduced last month was actually a DDDS,

I'll take a look at this, thanks!

                     Technology is legislation.

                         -- Karl Schroeder