Re: An idea: GxSE

[Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>]

At 02:19 PM 6/21/01, Paul Francis wrote:
> >
> > 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.

In the present Internet, the sessions already break when a link dies. The 
backbone convergence is taking too long for applications in many cases, 
from my observations. So, application writers either have to build in 
auto-reconnect logic, or their apps are going to have problems.

So, I don't know that there's much problem with the new sessions starting 
with different addresses, provided end systems are told in some way that an 
upstream link died (i.e. they have to know to use the other link).

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        dts@senie.com
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com