On 2010-08-03 01:52, Etienne Gallet de Santerre wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I am a PhD student working on home networking, and especially on
> multihoming.
>
> I agree Ole and think that multihoming will be no longer the privilege
> of industries, but will be available to home networks too.
>
> As a home network is not be managed by an administrator in most cases,
> the solutions have to be simple and automatic.
> So, these networks will have to deal with PA prefixes, renumbering,
> internal routing and so on.
> Finally, if home networks have solutions to deal with it, why industries
> can't do the same?
Etienne,
I believe, and hope, that we can devise solutions that work more or less
transparently for off-the-shelf home deployment, and maybe even for
small offices. (That's assuming I believe that SOHO users will have
multiple ISPs; I have my doubts about that, but never mind.) The
reason is that SOHO users in general absolutely don't care what their
address is; they may renumber every time they reboot, so why would they
care if they have two addresses? So yes, as Ole says, this is solvable.
The problem for larger corporate networks, especially multi-office
companies, is *much* harder. They don't add or change IP prefixes
easily. Please see RFC 5887. Almost all of it applies to the multi-prefix
case as well as to simple renumbering.
Brian
>
> Regards,
> Etienne Gallet de Santerre
>
>
> Ole Troan a écrit :
>> Brian,
>>
>>
>>> Sorry I was not in Maastricht and able to attend.
>>>
>>> Technically, it's very interesting, and is (as far as I am
>>> concerned) the original plan for IPv6 multihoming, as we expected
>>> ten years ago.
>>>
>>> But there's a problem. As far as I can tell from formal and
>>> informal contacts with IT management in typical companies
>>> and campuses, the idea of operating multiple prefixes in parallel,
>>> although fundamental in IPv6 design, is highly unwelcome to such
>>> managers. RFC 4192 is almost unknown, typical address management
>>> software packages struggle to deal with even one IPv6 prefix,
>>> and the aversion to renumbering when changing ISPs is enormous.
>>> In fact there's an RFC about that too: RFC 5887. We know that
>>> these site IT managers, and their ISPs, and therefore the RIRs,
>>> are going for PI prefixes as a result of this situation.
>>>
>>> What I don't see is how we can make the multi-prefix approach
>>> the preferred approach in the industry. Showing that it works
>>> is not going to be enough. It has to be *easy*.
>>>
>>
>> the use case which triggered this is for residential deployment. where
>> you have two independent but aware of each other service providers
>> (one ASP, one ISP) delivering service into the home.
>>
>> the deployment will require no configuration by the network owner (aka
>> end user).
>>
>> I wouldn't tout this type of multi-homing to enterprises (just yet).
>> on the other hand since every network is going to be IPv4 and IPv6
>> multi-homed very soon now, perhaps this isn't going to be much harder.
>> ;-)
>>
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
