Re: SCTP multihoming issues draft

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Coene Lode wrote:

> If by then end of next week, no further issues have been identified, then I
> would ask for this draft to be moved to informational.

Does the draft have to only consider two network interfaces for the
multihoming issues?   In IPv6, as you point out, each interface can have
more than one IPv6 address (and addresses of many scopes), so the simplest
multihoming case for IPv6 is a host (endpoint) with one interface, 
recieving two different /64 prefix RAs, and thus having two IPv6 addresses
from two different providers.   The dual interface scenario may be useful 
of course, e.g. when considering wired and air interfaces.

When you say "it is recommended that IP addresses in a multihomed endpoint 
be assigned IP endpoints from different TLA's to ensure against network 
failure", this would be the default case for IPv6.  

For IPv6, delete section 2.3 :-)

In general, more consideration could be given for IPv6, perhaps?  (you 
did cc multi6 :-)   If I've misinterpreted the text, perhaps the title
of the draft needs revision?

Best wishes,
Tim