Re: [Hipsec] End-host multi-homing (was Re: The state of IPv6 multihomingdevelopment)

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Juha;

>  > So what?  Maybe we need not just different multi-homing
>  > solutions for large sites and small sites, but also for
>  > large stationary servers, home servers, and mobile multi-access
>  > end-hosts.  I just don't know.  But so many solutions sure
>  > sounds quite complex.
> 
> we should have only one multihoming solution and that should definitely
> also cover the mobile hosts that are simultaneously attached to several
> mobile network (wlan, gprs, umts) and whose attachments can come and go
> dynamically.  ietf should not approve any limited solution that would
> only apply to stationary multihomed sites.

Unfortunately, your requirement for mobility is limited.

Morevoer, it is partially satisfied already as mobile host implementation
matter. A mobile host with multiple attachments is free to try all
the attachment, if, through some attachment, communication with a home
agent fails.

We already have running IPv4 mobile host implementation with PHS and
WLAN attachment.

Note that it is a variant of end to end multihoming, though a property
of moblity that care of addresses are variable and variable and that
WLAN is always better than PHS makes the implementation easier.

The basic reuirement for robust mobility, equivalent to the robustness
of multihoming, is to have multiple mobility agents (such as home agents).

							Masataka Ohta