RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Noel,

> J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> If you have a host which is multi-homed to widely spaced
> points in the topology, there's unlikely to be a routing-based
> solution, i.e. one where that host has only one address.

I totally disagree, and this sounds rather surprising to me considering
what you have written in the past about identity/location separation.
Would you be more specific about why you find this unlikely, and what
you call "widely spaced" (which I read as "from different PA blocks).


> First, Craig Huegen seems to think that any solution
> involving multiple addresses is infeasible for a large
> organization. What's your reply to him?

There is a difference between the solution itself using multiple
addresses and each host using multiple addresses. If each host has to
use multiple addresses, I regret to report that Craig's statement is not
an opinion, but a fact. Any people that disagree with this and that
actually have renumbered a 1000+ subnet enterprise network, please speak
up; otherwise, don't.

However, a solution that involves multiple addresses at the edge of the
organization but single addresses on the internal network and hosts does
not look unfeasible to me (Craig, please comment).


> Second, I seem to recall some people objecting to multiple
> addresses because it's too much code/complexity. It would
> seem to me that once you have multiple addresses, the details
> on exactly how they are used are somewhat in the noise; whether
> one tricks the transport layer, or gets it to understand the
> possibility of multiple addresses, there's a certain amount of
> code involved.

No disagreement here. That being said, we are not pursuing the UMS
without new code, are we?


> About the only way I could see it making a difference is if
> you can figure out some way to do all on the multi-homed end.

All on the multihomed end seems unrealistic, but there are ways to avoid
impact on the source single-homed end.

Michel.