RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

Shane,

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

> Shane Kerr wrote:
> Even if he's right, I think he's wrong to argue against
> end-point solutions based on multiple addresses. Given
> the current understanding of the problem and the approaches
> that have been outlined, doesn't it seem like wishful
> thinking to want One True Multihoming strategy? For small
> sites, binding multiple PA addresses into a single
> end-point seems like a straightforward, cheap, and
> effective solution.

Absolutely. It is clear that there is a place for both, and this WG has
been denying host-based solution in the misguided hunt for The Universal
Multihoming Solution. A PI solution is not the answer to everybody nor
is a host solution. My message to Peter Tattam and other people that
have designed host solutions is this: There is a place for what you are
doing, but also understand that it's not what everyone needs, and accept
the fact that your solution will have to coexist with something else.


> I'm not even 100% sure he's correct that multihoming
> needs to be in the network in order to do traffic
> engineering.  At least, I can envision end-site
> solutions that solve some (simple) classes of
> traffic engineering requirements.  :)

He is. It's not a matter of feasibility, but a matter of complexity.
Introducing transport-layer features would be the equivalent of NAT:
It's fine at home with your Linksys connected to a cable modem, but it's
a nightmare in the enterprise.

Michel.