Re: Transport level multihoming

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

On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Peter Tattam wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> > At 11:27 09/08/01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > >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.
> > 
> > Precisely so.  And they aren't merely pseudo-random, but
> > instead pseudo-random with *high probability* of many duplicates,
> > at least with the current specifications.
> > 
> > Ran
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Let us hope that duplicate discovery works properly then :)
> 
> Peter

The issue of duplicates rings an alarm bell with me.  Duplicate detection
is likely to be complicated by a transport layer solution to multihoming as
each multihomed address will require DAD.  

Should a unique site level address guarantee no duplicates on all other
prefixes? 

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