Re: Transport level multihoming

[Ramakrishna Gummadi <ramki@cs.berkeley.edu>]

> We invented IPv6 to avoid the need for address translation and all its
> attendant problems. The argument for a multi6 solution at transport level
> is to *deal with* the existence of multiple addresses and precisely to avoid
> translation. There is an alternative, which is the type of architected
> address translation implied by 8+8, GSE etc but please let's avoid painting
> ourselves into a corner that requires both transport layer gymnastics and NAT;
> that would be a catastrophe.

I think the question is: should multi6 also deal with provider
multihoming? If it should, then address translation like 8+8 would be
required because the multi6 requirements draft says that the architecture
should provide for policy-based multihoming---if untranslated addresses
are used directly by the provider's sites (single- or multi-homed), the
site is pretty much dictating the routing, and load-sharing policies.

If 8+8 or GSE or some such is used, this would preclude a transport-level
or app-level
solution because we don't want routers to modify addresses in the payload
as well. That leaves us only with network-level solutions.

Is there anything wrong in the argument?

thanks,
ramki