Curtis & Damien, On 01/10/2012 19:01, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > In message <50698d7f.5000...@gmail.com> > Brian E Carpenter writes: > >> On 01/10/2012 08:32, Damien Saucez wrote: >>> Curtis, >>> >>> Thank you for the comments. >>> >>> Our target in this document is to raise the question of multihoming >>> in personal and/or small/medium enterprise networks, so for now >>> we were not looking at the mobile device such as smartphones >>> connected to both 4g and wifi (for this, the multihoming solution >>> must be implemented directly on the device). We believe that >>> SOHO would be interested being multihomed but can't afford the >>> cost of operating multihoming themselves. >> >> That's a good description of why the IETF designed SHIM6, which requires >> no cooperation from any router or ISP and scales well, should cost little >> or nothing, and will work for mobile devices too, on two conditions >> >> 1. It becomes widely deployed >> 2. Firewalls allow the SHIM6 extension header. >> >> I don't believe that this is really a topic for homenet, however. >> >> Brian > > > Brian, > > Your item #2 might be worth recording somewhere as a requirement if it > is not already in rfc6204bis. (I didn't look).
No. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmit/ which it might be useful to discuss in Atlanta. > > If shim6 is the recommendation on the part of homenet as to how to > deal with multihoming in the home, then this is significant and should > be in the framework. It isn't a recommendation as far as I know, but shim6 was designed for use by small sites unlikely to operate a PI prefix and/or a routing-based approach to multihoming. On 01/10/2012 21:09, Damien Saucez wrote: > Well, I don't really like shim6 in this situation because it requires > every host to implement shim6 (is shim6 in a sensor or in an access > controller reasonable?). Probably not, but aren't such devices very likely to be gatewayed by some sort of building services server anyway, which is where the multihoming comes in? (There was some early work done on proxy shim6, for such cases.) > Also it is not straightforward with shim6 how > to allow one to manage the devices in its network. In other words, > how to outsource traffic control if shim6 is used? If I remember well > the discussion a few years ago in shim6, the lack of easy > management was sometime pinpointed. Yes, by ISPs who want to use BGP-style traffic engineering for larger customers. I don't think that applies to homenets. There is also a problem of exit selection, and although not explicitly aimed at shim6, that issue also comes up in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat. As far as I can tell, multihoming is not mentioned in the homenet charter, but it is discussed in draft-ietf-homenet-arch, without a clear conclusion. There is an argument for a specific analysis document on this topic, before we discuss our favourite solutions. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
