Re: multihoming requirement and NAT64

["George Tsirtsis" <tsirtsis@googlemail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
> On 28 mrt 2008, at 18:07, marcelo bagnulo wrote:
>
>  >> What kind of multihoming are we talking about?
>
>  > My understanding is that we are talking about the possibility of
>  > having multiple NAT64, possible located in different ISPs
>
>  Ok. I think this SHOULD go into the requirements:
>

GT> Sorry, I am slow this morning but what does this mean exactly? Are
you talking about one NAT64 box connected to two ISPs? or are you
talking about two NAT64 boxes serving the same IPv6-stab, connected to
two different ISPs? I assume the latter? In which case what would we
expect to add to each NAT64 box to allow a second NAT64 box to exist?
I would expect that such support would require something by the end
nodes e.g., being able to discover the different NAT64 prefixes etc.
or are you thinking something else?

Thanks
George

>
>
>  >> It seems to me that not having any session preserving multihoming
>  >> support isn't worse than NAT44, so there is no need to make this a
>  >> requirement - with one small exception: in order to successfully
>  >> fail over to a different translator, the entity that creates the
>  >> full IPv6 address from the IPv4 address and the translator prefix
>  >> MUST be able to discover a /96 prefix for a working translator
>  >> fairly quickly after the failure of a previously used translator.
>  >> I'm not sure what "fairly quickly" would mean in this context,
>  >> though. Certainly not days or hours. Minutes? Seconds, even?
>
>