Subject: (IPng 7561) mutlihomed sites

From: Vitaly Chipitsyn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:29:03 -0400 (EDT)

Hello, everyone!!

1) Considering a multihomed site, is it sufficient to have all nodes
belonging to the site have global IPv6 addresses incorporating
prefixes of all NLAs/sTLAs/etc to which the site connects? 

So, if there are two connection points to the internet, AAAA::/28 and
BBBB::/28, then interfaces of each node inside the site would have two
addresses AAAA::host_id and BBBB::host_id assigned. Right or wrong? :-)

2) If the assumption (1) is correct, then what happens to routing of
packets? Based on what assumption should a particular node choose
which of its two addresses to use for better efficiency/throughput/etc
while communicating with nodes outside the site? 

Thank you.
--vc
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ramin Sepehr Rad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 17:48:39 -0400 (EDT)

> addresses AAAA::host_id and BBBB::host_id assigned. Right or wrong? :-)

There hasn't been many discussions on multi-homing. (well, not that I know
of.) I actually thought of the same solution as yours, but the problem that I
see with this is wasted IP address space and, being an employee of ARIN, that
kinda bothers me. :)

> while communicating with nodes outside the site? 

How about an interior routing protocol?

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| Ramin Sepehr Rad              American Registry for Internet Numbers |
| [email-masked]                                      4506 Daly Drive |
| (703) 227-9876                                             Suite 200 |
| (703) 227-0676 (FAX)                             Chantilly, VA 20151 |
 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:37:32 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   
=> it is necessary (I have to find time to update and post a new
version of my I-D about this topics).

=> I'll try to propose a BOF about IPv6 multihoming in Oslo
because it is a technical & research (*) interesting issue.
There are some I-D about this issue and at least one RFC.

[email-masked]

PS: (*) Research because we don't really know the best solution,
one can consider this is more for IRTF than IETF too...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 09:54:27 -0500

> of.)

There were many long ones.  

> I actually thought of the same solution as yours, but the problem that I

The alternative is to have the global routing tables incorporate the
topology of every multihomed site and, being a user of the internet,
that kinda bothers me.
______________________________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford                    [email-masked]                     Fermilab
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:40:44 -0700

At 2:37 PM +0200 5/27/99, Francis Dupont wrote:
>=> I'll try to propose a BOF about IPv6 multihoming in Oslo...

Francis,

That should not be necessary.  The IPng working group already decided
that multihoming was our major piece of unfinished business, and that
it will be included in our updated charter (currently being drafted
by the chairs).  We plan to devote at least half of our WG meeting time
(e.g., one of our two meeting slots) in Oslo to the topic of multihoming,
which is the same amount of time you would get for a BOF.

>version of my I-D about this topics).

That would be great.  We also encourage anyone else to submit drafts
or start discussions on the mailing list, if you have new ideas for how
to solve or alleviate the Internet-old problems of multihomed hosts and
multi-homed sites.

Steve