RE: Transport level multihoming

[Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> > 	#1 - how multihoming is done today in the Internet
> > 	#2 - requirements for multihoming in an IPv6 Internet
> >            (which probably should say "AT LEAST #1 and some more things")
> 
> just to make trouble, and not because i have a position on the question, is
> the parenthetical above *really* a desirable/necessary condition?  i.e.  if,
> by magic, we come up with a really sexy v6 solution, must it also support
> current v4-style multihoming.

Sorry, I missed something very important there.  Is it planned to support
multihoming exactly as Ipv4 does now?  The policy a couple of years back was
very firm.  IPv6 = Strong aggregation, small DFZ.  Current v4 style multihoming
can't fit that requirement.  Trying to shoehorn Ipv4 BGP practices into Ipv6
has very serious problems for scalability and long term stability of the core.

Has there been a backdown or crucial change in policy that I have somehow
missed because I had my head down on other work? 

> 
> randy
> 
> 

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210