RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>]

  > >   > So what's the use then? We don't multihome because we like
  > >   > having many addresses, but to survive failures.
  > 
  > > => That's why I asked: "How much interruption is acceptable?"
  > > What do you mean by survive failure? Is it ok to lose 150 ms
  > > of traffic? Or are you asking for a seamless survival failures
  > > (i.e. zero interruption). Frankly I don't think that a 
  > 100 - 200 ms
  > > interruption is a big deal, considering that this failure is not
  > > something that will happen once a minute.
  > 
  > The shorter the better, but anything under 15 seconds is 
  > good enough,
  > IMO.

=> ok, thanks. 15 seconds is eternity for MIPv6, I don't
think meeting this time restriction is an issue. 

  > > => I'm confused. Why would a home Agent become unreachable??
  > > You seem to assume that the HA must be located in the
  > > upstream provider's network (that's the only interpretation
  > > I can think of for your statement above). The HA can be located
  > > in the mutlihomed enterprise.
  > 
  > Ah, I see now. I'm not sure where exactly I envisioned the 
  > home agent,
  > but I didn't consider moving it to a place that is 
  > multihomed through
  > separate means. Still, we'd need a good solution for all 
  > the home agents
  > (at least this will lessen the problem a good deal) and 
  > having a single
  > point of failure somewhere isn't optimal.

=> Sure, but corporate networks are full of them :). 
This is an important problem to solve IMHO, whether
it should be done in this WG is a different discussion. 

Hesham