Subject: RE: V6ops: IPv6 site multihoming best practices

From: "Dwight Jamieson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:23:44 -0500

Janos,

The mechanisms described in RFC 3178 would maintain connectivity for an
ISP link failure and have the potential to maintain connectivity after
an ISP PE failure. Of course, a total ISP melt down would cause
connections to be lost for the end stations in the site using the failed
ISP. They could be reestablished using the alternate ISP.

Do you know if this solution has wide acceptance from enterprises or
ISPs?

Cheers,
Dwight

-----Original Message-----
From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 3:00 AM
To: Jamieson, Dwight [CAR:NP10:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: V6ops: IPv6 site multihoming best practices

Hi,
 	I do prefer working solutions that exist for site multihoming:
e.g RFC 3178. I also cover several alternatives in my IPv6 Multihoming 
presentation: http://www.6diss.org/workshops/saf/multihoming.pdf

Regards,

Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE  21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Dwight Jamieson wrote:

>
>
> In the absence of mature protocol support for site multi-homing 
> (shim6), what are the best practice recommendations for an enterprise 
> or service provider?
>
> Cheers,
> Dwight
>