Re: An idea: GxSE

["Paul Francis" <yoid2000@home.com>]

>
> 1) Site is multihomed and one of the links to the ISP is broken and
>    how we get around this without breaking any connections.
>
> 2) Site is multihomed and there is a long running e.g. TCP connection
>    which needs to survive in the case of renumbering.
>
> So, we are addressing (1) in this WG. Hence, the use of word renumbering
> is confusing to me. Could somebody clarify this ?
>

I think, broadly stated, the goal of the wg is to have the same multihoming
functionality with IPv6 as we have with IPv4, but done in a scalable way.
But multi6 is producing a requirements document that will clarify things.

With IPv4 multihoming today (ignoring the NAT case), case 1 works, so
presumably we want this functionality with IPv6.  Even so, I think in most
cases losing a connection because an ISP went down would be acceptable, as
long as new connections indeed chose the other ISP.

Case 2 is less clear, because we really don't have renumbering with IPv4.
I'd argue myself that we should not go out of our way to design for case 2,
for the reasons I said before (it is relatively rare, and you should in most
cases be able to overlap the old and new prefixes so that most long-term
connections will have naturally terminated on their own).

PF