Re: FW: Marcelo's review of mobike protocol

Tero Kivinen wrote:

>marcelo bagnulo braun writes:
>  
>
>>>There should not be problems with the ingress filters, as we always
>>>use the source address associated to the given interface when sending
>>>packets out. I.e. if we have two interfaces A and B, having IPa and
>>>IPb,  when we send packets out using IPa we always select interface A.
>>>The network connected to the interface should allow IPa to pass
>>>through it as it is IP address given by the network to the host for
>>>that interface. Implementations might need to do specific things to
>>>bypass routing of those packets (using default route or similar) to
>>>make use they are really sent out from the host using proper
>>>interface.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>yes in this case there shouldn't be problems with ingress filters. 
>>However, as i understand it, it is expected that a common multihoming 
>>scenario is that multiple PA address blocks are assigned to a 
>>multihomed site (one per isp serving the site), so that there will be 
>>multiple global addresses assigned to each interface connected to the 
>>multihomed site.
>>    
>>
>
>I do not think that will be the case of the roaming laptop case, i.e.
>the GPRS, WLAN and fixed ethernet links all give out exctly one
>IP-address to the connected interface, and you are only supposed to
>use that IP-address through that interface to which it was given to.
>  
>
In IPv6 it is indeed possible that you have multiple
addresses and prefixes on a single interface. Then the
issues that Marcelo refers to become possible. But
from what I understand we can deal with that in an
orthogonal way, i.e., this is an issue in MOBIKE usage,
in SHIM6 usage, and even when no multihoming protocol
is used at all.

--Jari