RE: GSE IDs [Re: IETF multihoming powder: just add IPv6 and stir]

[marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Christian,

On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 17:26, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > >> But I think we should revisit this when there is an actual proposal
> > >> that adds extra headers to packets because only then we'll be able
> to
> > >> see how this helps us and how it hurts us.
> > 
> > > Well, using MIPv6 could be one of such proposals (there are some
> issues
> > > to solve) but still can be useful to quantify the amount of overhead
> > > involved.
> > 
> > Mobile IP in IPv6 uses a 24 byte header to carry the original source
> > address, right?
> 
> It does, but it only needs to do so when negotiating a binding update.
> The trick is to design a usage model of MIPv6 in which binding updates
> are used to redirect a TCP connection (or a UDP flow) to a new address.
> 

IMHO, it would be interesting to use the MIPv6 protocol in such a way
that changes are imposed to the CNs are as few as possible (Changing
Mobile Nodes behaviour, assuming that this role will be assumed by hosts
within the multi-homed site is acceptable).
So considering that MIPv6 already provides connection survivability
throughout network access point changes, it is would be interesting to
evaluate if it can be adapted to support multi-homing.
So, i would say that a MIPv6 based solution for multi-homing can be
evaluated considering the changes it imposes to CN.

However, from your comments above, i would say that you are considering
more substantial changes in the CN behaviour, perhaps you could expand
on this?

Thanks, marcelo

> -- Christian Huitema
-- 
marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
uc3m