Re: Transport level multihoming

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

On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> > 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?
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> are you asking if the forwarding look-up is longest match on 64 or 128 bits?
> i think the latter is mandatory.  we do allow allocation of /128s.

No, I'm not.  See other references.  The main relevance is towards efficient
representation of lists of multihomed addresses.  Having the last 128-N bits of
address identical between items in that list may be important.

> 
> 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