North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: multi-homing fixes
> > 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 188.8.131.52, 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?