RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

I have not weighed in on this discussion yet as I wanted to see what the
general consensus was.

All I can say is that I believe the transport based solution I developed a
couple of years back will work, and could easily be extended to cover non-TCP
protocols.  However, I did find that the level of support for my ideas were
rather wanting which sadly made it difficult for me to devote time & effort to
rounding them off.  One other difficulty is that IPv6 deployment of
hardware/software is now a fait accomplit and it's unlikely that my ideas would
be implementable.

I too agree that the requirements document places an insurmountable hurdle as
there are mutually exclusive requirements that must be met.

I have recently wondered whether the multihoming problem could be solved by
isolating the requirement for global uniqueness of IP addresses from the
more fluid nature of routing.  Such proposals have been raised before, but
rejected as being too radical in my opinion.

One thing still remains clear though - multihoming is the thorn in the side for
IPv6.  Until it is finalized, IPv6 will be going nowhere.

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