Re: Transport level multihoming

[Joe Abley <jabley-ietf@automagic.org>]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 02:19:15PM -0400, Ran Atkinson wrote:
> At 14:00 03/04/01, Greg Maxwell wrote:
> 
> >The reasoning stated more clearly: Application compatibility for
> >multihoming in IPv6 is not important because IPv6 itself breaks
> >application compatability to a similar extent as multihoming changes
> >would. 
> 
>         It is not clear that anyone could know whether
> "IPv6 itself breaks application compatibility to a similar 
> extent as multihoming changes would", particularly since the 
> "multihoming changes" are currently not specified anyplace.

I believe the point was that if state explosion in the core causes
an IPv6 internet to be dysfunctional, that will have an impact on
applications.

>         Again, since "multihoming changes" are not defined
> anyplace, such a comparison is impossible to make in a
> scientific way today.

I'm not sure what you mean by "multihoming changes". The document
tabled to date is a list of requirements for IPv6 multihoming, which
can be found at:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-00.txt

This may give you a starting point, and comments and criticism on
that draft would be most welcome.


Joe