On Oct 11, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 11/10/2012 10:37, Tim Chown wrote: >> On 1 Oct 2012, at 22:14, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> A homenet arch -05 is about to be published. >> >> As Brian says, there is a brief section in the arch text about multihoming, >> which we believe captures all that needs to be said. The section tries to >> describe the architectural implications of different approaches in the >> context of the architecture goals. For example, nothing in the architecture >> should preclude use of shim6, if the hosts support it. >> >> If people have specific comments on 3.2.4 where this is contained, please >> make them and we can consider those. > > " Host-based methods such as Shim6 [RFC5533] have been defined, but of > course require support in the hosts." > > Perhaps you should mention MPTCP here too. > > My concern about the whole section is that it leaves things open; it would > be better if the architecture could suggest an immediately available > solution, as well as leaving open alternative solutions for the future. > I think that draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat is the > closest thing we have to an immediately available solution, and it's > in the RFC Editor queue.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat seems highly relevant to the work in this group as it is all about what to do when there is more than one router and more than one prefix in a site, specifically with respect to IP assignment and routing. It defines "Multihomed with Multi-prefix" (MHMP) for a host, which is precisely what we would be setting up hosts to be able to do in a homenet with more than one ISP upink with different prefixes. So much the better than its publication is imminent. - Mark > > Nit: your reference to this I-D in homenet-arch-04 is broken. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
