RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Tony Hain wrote:

> > Unless I'm mistaken nobody here has proposed a solution that
> > has this problem. If/when addresses are changed somewhere,
> > they are either changed back later,

> Through a complex mechanism that scales worse than inter-domain
> multicast. Since that has proven to be a real deployment challenge, why
> do we think magic translator protocols are going to be any better?

I don't see any relationship with interdomain multicast, so the fact
that this has been hard to deploy in the past (and unless I'm mistaken
the scalability problems have now been largely solved) doesn't say
anything about translation mechanisms.

Anything that happens in end-hosts should scale well. Moving the
functionality to a different box outside, but still close to, the
end-hosts should also scale as long as it's possible to deploy an
arbitrary number of those boxes = no hard state. Content delivery
systems often use complex NAT setups to balance the load and provide
redundancy. Since what we're proposing here is simpler than NAT, I see
no reason why it wouldn't work or scale.

And if for the truly huge networks this solution isn't viable, they can
always use IPv4-style multihoming. (But they'd still need to implement
all of this in order to be able to talk to others who use multi-address
multihoming.)

Iljitsch