Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Tim Chown wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:20:03PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> > It shouldn't if these boxes just replace prefixes. In current NAT setups
> > much more is changed: the entire address, not just a prefix, for
> > starters, and also a port number and the TCP/UDP checksum. In the setup
> > I'm talking about just the prefix (presumably, the 48 most significant
> > bits) change and everything else remains the same, so no need to keep
> > state.
> 
> Well, that has been punted around as an idea for some time (8+8 or 6+2+8).
> 
> e.g. from 1995/6:
> http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/199612/msg00116.html

And it is not part of the IPv6 that is being rolled out today, so
I don't think rehashing the debate is relevant to multihoming that IPv6.

  Brian