Re: note from the iesg plenary

[Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>]

Routing does not but the end node could.  Routing would be transparent to
the solution.

I think the best multi6 proposal would be one that can start alleviating
the pain of multihoming in v6 while we work the routing issues in general
in the IETF.  Also this will help as IPv6 deployment is eminant and will
not wait for us to finish.  By defining a mechanism like SCTP and use of
proper scoping with address selection much of the multihome problem can be
solved using the ideas from ohta-san, peter tatam et al and we can get
this in our IPv6 production code bases by late 2002 or early 2003.
Possbily earlier with code patches with a shim I suggested to Brian on
other mail thread.  Do not assume the market will wait or can be held up
at least in Asia and Europe, and now even certain target markets will
begin early adoption in the U.S. and have already although in test phase
now.


/jim


On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> > it was noted that there has been little attention payed in the ietf
> > to scoped addresses of various types in the ipv6 standard (e.g., link
> > or anycast addresses).  
> > 
> > for our wg (from me, not from the floor): can these different address
> > varities, when a host uses them, be considered as a form of
> > multiple-address multihoming?  likewise, those approaches which change the
> > routing system in some fashion: how can/do they deal with such addressing
> > types?
> 
> routing as we know it, does not have sufficient scoping / reachability
> constraint mechanisms to handle the seeming semantics.
> 
> randy
>