Subject: RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 00:05:28 -0800

|   What a stupid suggestion.

Thank you for your opinion.

|   It makes the border router the single point of failure totally
|   destroying the benefit of multihoming.

Or.... you could use multiple border routers.  

|   If you try to have multiple border routers with complex redundancy
|   protocol, there always is simple failure mode of the protocol.

Yes, but you don't NEED a complex redundancy protocol.  You only need
the group of border routers to make a consistent decision about the
optimal exit route.  We have a tool that does this already.  ;-)

Tony

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:56:42 +0859 ()

Tony;

> Or.... you could use multiple border routers.  

By doing everything on hosts, yes, we can.

> optimal exit route.  We have a tool that does this already.  ;-)

You don't.

You need secure transport (MPLS?) between border routers to
prohibits hosts select the optimal exit routes by themselves.

At the same time, you need extended ICMP redirect for route optimization
to let border routers teach the hosts locators to the optimal exit routes
to be selected for latter communication.

It, of course, is obvious that above two mutually contradict that
you should make your protocol even more complex to obscure the
contradiction.

I, instead, simply make all the selection on the hosts.

						Masataka Ohta