Re: Requirements [was Re: Transport level multihoming]

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

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:27:40PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
> > My answer is no, it would be a very serious mistake to require (b)
> > in this case. It would result in an undeployable solution.
> 
> Agree with Brian. Applications will have to deal with restarting
> connections if they die. This is fairly common already, since the
> IPv4/BGP multihoming world works this way.

Could you explain this further?

My impression is that IPv4/BGP multihoming that happens today provides
session stability, and applications do not need to deal with restarting
connections in the event of a re-homing event.

If the intention is to provide a multi-homing architecture in v6 that
provides all the functionality of the v4 one, then I think we need to
put more thought into why session stability is not required before we
discard it. Otherwise there is a danger that pressure will exist to
do CIDR-style multi-homing in v6 since it remains the only solution
that meets this particular requirement.


Joe