Re: Mutli6 meeting in Vienna

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> > > Is there any restriction on the length of the prefix for a network to be
> > > considered site-multihomed ?
> > 
> > "Site multihoming" to one provider (called site multiconnecting in the v4 
> > draft) is basically a no-brainer, AFAIK.  
> 
> I'm happy to learn it's a no-brainer, that was not my perception, but I
> need a little more thoughts on this. Is there any recommended document
> we should read to understand the problem space (besides the multi6 i-d)
> ?

No.

Well, I've covered it very briefly in my thesis, available at:
http://staff.csc.fi/psavola/di.ps

The main thing is that if you're multiconnecting inside the ISP, you don't 
need more than one set of addresses, at least in the typical case.  In 
that case, the ISP can route them appropriately to you any way you agree 
about it.

But if you consider this from the "small customer" perspective, e.g. a 
laptop with both GPRS and WLAN interfaces *to the same ISP*, the problem 
space is probably not that much different from the two ISP case.

> > Is there something here which leads you to believe we need to work on this?
> 
> No, I'm just trying to understand the problem space in the case I
> connect an in-vehicle network to different ISPs, where the prefix should
> come from, its length, etc, and also scalability concerns (there are 700
> Millions vehicles in the world). So, I have a strong interest in the
> word conducted in Multi6. We have to make sure your forthcoming
> solutions will work for NEMO.

Ok, thanks for info.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings