Re: Transport level multihoming

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Given that privacy considerations will force us to accept pseudo-random lower 
64 bits, I don't think we can assume much of anything about those bits from
the viewpoint of host identity.

   Brian

Jim Bound wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> > One question.
> >
> > In a transport level multihoming scenario, should two addresses that differ in
> > the lower 64 bits (node address part) be considered independent nodes and
> > handled in the traditional manner with regard to multiple addresses?
> 
> Good question.  I would say yes but SCTP would permit one to treat them as
> the same node yet different links (interfaces).  But I think we need to
> think hard about the question and all the matrix of answers.
> 
> >
> > Why I ask is that the upper 64 bits of all possible full addresses for a
> > particular node that is multihomed have particular properties that would be
> > useful to exploit in transport level multihoming.  If the lower 64 bits is not
> > identical between multiple addresses, it could lead to inefficiencies in a
> > compressed representation of the list of IPv6 addresses.  It may also be
> > important to some layers of any multihoming protocol to consider that addresses
> > which differ in the lower 64 bits would not being equivalent for the purposes
> > of multihoming.
> 
> Hmmmm... I am not sure we can assume this on the lower 64 bits...I need to
> dream on that...Excellent question.
> 
> /jim