1. Host Centric Multi6 Christian Huitema Architect Windows Networking & Communications Microsoft Corporation

2. 7/20/2002Host centric multi62 Principle Site is connected to multiple providers Get as many prefixes Prefixes are propagated to all site routers Router renumbering? Hosts get as many addresses Prefix = provider Subnet number Host ID Publish addresses in DNS R R R R Internet P1 P2 H H H H

3. 7/20/2002Host centric multi63 Issue: destination address selection Fairly common Many hosts are multi-homed. Debate whether hosts have sufficient information Hard for small appliances, not enough information Easy for large servers It is not unrealistic to expect progress in this area, communication between the hosts and the routers, sharing of experience between hosts, innovative application design At worst, a host can always try the proposed addresses one by one, and pick the first one that actually works -- not very elegant, but definitely workable.

4. 7/20/2002Host centric multi64 Issue: source address selection Existing software ties source address selection to interface selection Select outgoing interface Pick one address on interface as source Only consider address scope, and possibly “privacy” status Choosing the source address will affect the reverse path of the connection Issue similar to “destination address selection” We need some improvement for multi- addressing

5. 7/20/2002Host centric multi65 Issue: rapid reaction to topology change One of site X providers (A) becomes unreachable How do we avoid picking a source address A:X ? How do peers avoid picking a destination address A:X ?

6. 7/20/2002Host centric multi66 Issue: site exit & ingress filtering X picks source address A:X, dest D:Y Routing fabric sends packet to exit router RXB Provider B sees source = A:X, perform ingress filtering, rejects the packet /--( A )--( )–-( C )--\ (RXA) ( ) (RYC) X (site X) ( IPv6 ) (Site Y) Y (RXB) ( ) (RYD) \--( B )--( )--( D )--/

7. 7/20/2002Host centric multi67 Classification of the issues Destination address selection Nice to have. Should at least “retry” Source address selection Nice to have. Reaction to topology changes Nice to have Ingress filteringMUST SOLVE

8. 7/20/2002Host centric multi68 Comparison of ingress filtering solutions Relax address filtering Requires provider involvement Easy to deploy for large sites Source address dependent routing Variant = tunnels between exit routers Packet rewriting at exit router Inferior to “exit tunnel” solution Source address selection by the host Complement to source dependent routing Requires “exit router” discovery

9. 7/20/2002Host centric multi69 The “dumb host” requirement Unmodified host Picks a single source address Must work at least as well as “not multi- homed” Consequence Ingress filtering must work for all destinations if source provider available Imply either “relaxed filtering” or “per source routing”

10. 7/20/2002Host centric multi610 Solution’s principle (dumb host) A B X Y rxa rxb tunnel Update

11. 7/20/2002Host centric multi611 Solution’s principle (exit discovery) A B X Y rxa rxb bad source Try can be as simple as sending a “ping”, maybe with source address = site local… try

12. 7/20/2002Host centric multi612 Solution’s principle (exit tunnel & redirect) A B X Y rxa rxb tunnel redirect Update (in tunnel) Update There are alternatives, e.g. don’t use update, just a direct tunnel to the “right” exit.

13. 7/20/2002Host centric multi613 Proposed solution Facilitate site exit Site exit “logical” address (for tunnels) Site exit redirect ICMP Tunnel to appropriate exit Router advertisements for rapid reaction preferred lifetime > 0  source is OK Need router renumbering Host improvements Source and destination address selection Exit router discovery (understand site exit ICMP) Binding update / Mobile IPv6 for “reassignment”

14. 7/20/2002Host centric multi614 Going forward Reconcile / merge with Bagnulo’s draft Compare binding update versus advertisement of multiple addresses Study possible provider help Some form of tunneling when provider link is broken… Get consensus for a narrow scope WG charter, or progress document without a WG