Re: Transport level multihoming

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

Brian/Ran,

I agree.  Forgot about the privacy exts...

thx


/jim


On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, 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.
> 
>    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
>