Re: draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-03

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Joe Abley wrote:

> The example I have used for this before concerns people who operate
> networks in places where satellite communications are substantially
> cheaper than terrestrial communications (this is most of the planet, by
> area).

> It is common practice to number news, mail, and HTTP proxy servers
> (tuned for retrieval of objects over satellite-like latencies) within
> subnets which can be advertised such that inbound traffic from the rest
> of the world arrives on those servers via a satellite link, whereas all
> other traffic (including traffic directly aimed at subscriber addresses)
> arrives via terrestrial fibre.

Ok, nothing wrong with that. But BGP doesn't provide any functionality to
really help with this. Since it can be done now without help from BGP,
there is no reason an IPv6 solution should specifically cater to this
need. Just not getting in the way of more specific routes or policy
routing should be enough.

> I think the basic requirement should stay. I am not married to the words
> currently in 3.1.4, however, so if you have better ones I'd be glad to
> hear them.

"Existing IPv4 multihoming practices can coexist with policy-based routing
and forwarding mechanisms. An IPv6 multihoming architecture should
retain this capability."