RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Tony Li wrote:

> And you're not likely to see one soon either.  Look at the
> problem that we're trying to solve:
>
> - Not exploding the DFZ requires hierarchical addressing.
> - Being multihomed implies that there is a cycle in the
>   graph, which implies that a node appears multiple
>   places in the hierarchy.
> - No changes in the transport implies that once you start
>   using an address, you MUST continue using it, thereby
>   binding yourself to one path through the hierarchy.
>
> Tunnelling tries to address this by maintaining the
> hierarchy and virtualizing the topology.  Geographic
> addressing declares the top of the graph to be
> hierarchical, but makes the lower layers non-hierarchical
> and thereby pushes the explosion down, simply moving
> the problem.
>
> Something has to give, and IMHO, it had better be the
> transport.

I believe that any tunnling purposal would be an incomplete solution  and
something of a hack. I really don't think that anyone is arguing that such
a solution is realistic due to it's inelegance. (anyone feel free
to correct me)

I condend that the requirements of no-transport-layer-mods and aggregation
are mutually exclusive and we need to drop one of them.. as soon as we
do: The answer becomes trivial.