[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-shim6-applicability-01.txt
On 13-jun-2006, at 14:35, Daniel Roesen wrote:
Given that shim6 doesn't provide site multihoming, but only host
multihoming, I'd suggest to change this wording to reflect reality.
The shim6 approach is to provide site multihoming by adding a
capability to multi-home to the hosts within the site, as you know.
Do you think that is semantically misleading?
Yes I do. It's not a site being multihomed, it's a host being
multihomed. Which is (to me and many others) a totally different
story.
Is it hair splitting day already?
There is absolutely nothing in shim6 which leans on the "site"
concept, no site-wide policy enforcement etc. A site multihoming
solution involves a site-wide routing policy (and it's enforcement),
totally independent of the hosts which are usually to be considered
untrusted and under different administration than the site network.
shim6 doesn't deliver anything of that, so it's not a site multihoming
solution. It's a solution for ad-hoc opportunistic host multihoming in
cases where both ends support it and where two or more transitted IPv6
addresses with associated uplinks are available.
Unless I've misunderstood all of that. :-)
My understanding of the whole thing is that either you have two or
more cables coming into your SITE or you have two or more cables
coming into your HOST. The former should be called site multihoming,
the latter host multihoming. (Allowing for wireless multihoming while
still making the point as intended is left as an exercise for the
reader.)
I don't think that under the above definition shim6 can be considered
a mechanism for host multihoming, even though it's not impossible to
use it as such. (But then I can run BGP on my laptop and do "host
multihoming" in that way too.)