Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>]

On 2002-10-22 10:32:52 -0500, Craig A. Huegen wrote:
> 
> As for the original multi-PA multihoming solution, it doesn't fly in
> an enterprise.  The selection of source and destination addresses by
> the originating host keeps enterprises from managing bandwidth on
> circuits, because the routing infrastructure has no idea of possible
> alternate paths for the packet.  

A multi-PA multihoming solution can use several techniques to allow
the destination host to determine the addresses used, especially if it
is layer 4 or higher.  It seems like a lot of of end-sites would be
happy with redundancy first, speed second, and least-cost routing as
icing on the cake.

Do you think enterprises would you reject out of hand a solution that
uses DNS-style RTT optimisation for destination address selection?

> BGP isn't perfect either, but it's much better than how many bits a
> particular address has in common with another.  Managing n+1
> prefixes per subnet where n is number of providers serving a site is
> a nightmare.  The list of problems goes on...

Maybe you can point me to a URL of the specific draft you're
addressing here (I only see the hoary requirements document at the
IETF site).

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC