On 04/03/2015 23:12, Ole Troan wrote: >>> Much as I love MPTCP, it only helps TCP sessions. And it requires both >>> hosts to >>> be updated to be effective. >> >> IPv6 multi-prefix multi-homing requires both hosts to support it. which >> means transport fixes. > > to reply to myself. is anyone aware of any document describing the > "expectations for hosts / host gaps" with regards to IPv6 multi-prefix > multi-homing? including renumbering, mobility, redundancy, load sharing... > essentially the RFC3582 goals.
The best I've got is the set of MULTI6 deliverables: Goals for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures (RFC 3582) IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations (RFC 4116) Architectural Approaches to Multi-Homing for IPv6 (RFC 4177) Threats relating to IPv6 Multihoming Solutions (RFC 4218) Things Multihoming in IPv6 (MULTI6) Developers Should Think About (RFC 4219) Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
