RE: WG next steps

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

Christian,

> Christian Huitema wrote:
> There are really two classes of solutions. I would categorize
> them as "host multi-homing and network multi-homing".

A side note on this: in ipv6mh, we have three solutions spaces, router
solutions (that would be network multihoming) host solutions (that would
be host multihoming) and mobile solutions. The mobile solution space is
desperately empty and I would not be surprised if it disappeared at the
next re-charter and we would go back to a two-space model similar as
what you mentioned above.

> The network multi-homing solution assumes that a network
> gets several providers, and that the routing fabric
> somehow manages to make all these providers behave as one.

Yes.


> In the current architecture, the network gets a single
> prefix, and the impact on the DFZ could be immense. 

OTOH it could also be very small. The prefix needs to be unique, but
does not need to be present in the DFZ.


> Michel Py suggested that it could be made to work even
> better if the providers somehow cooperated, e.g. were ready
> to install some back-up tunnels to redirect packets bound to
> a failing interface; this kind of back-up tunnel only impacts
> the provider's IGP, without affecting the DFZ.

Did I? I don't remember this and it certainly is not my style. Looks
more Iljitsch's style :-)

Michel.