Re: [Monami6] Host with multiple addresses of the same prefix

Hi Gabor

On 2006/05/08, at 23:24, Gábor Fekete wrote:

> Helo Ryuji and list,
>
> On Monday 08 May 2006 16:22, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
>> Hi Gabor
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Sorry, I was not exact enough. So, again.
>>>
>>> 1. Is a host with multiple addresses on the same interface with the
>>> same
>>>    prefix considered as multihomed?
>>> 2. Does it make sense?
>>> 3. draft-ietf-monami6-multihoming-motivation-scenario-00.txt draft
>>> should
>>>    mention it at least with one sentence in Section 2.
>>> 4. How does draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-05.txt handle this
>>> case
>>>    when the MN wants to register multiple bindings with its HoA?
>>
>>  From this draft, no extension is necessary to support this. I.e. the
>> draft can support your case.
>> Even if the prefix is same, the address is different. The MN can
>> register the addresses as distinct bindings.
>
> Great!
>
>> This is similar to the second scenario of Section 5.1 of the draft.
>
> Similar but it does not cover this case clearly since it talks about
> "multiple prefixes".

right. so it's not same but "similar":-)
Anyway, the prefix difference doesn't affect the operation.

> And now some non-multiplecoa related note:
>
> I think it is quite clear what I am up to with this thread. If  
> there is
> no disagreement that multiple addresses with the same prefix on a  
> single
> interface leads to a multihoming scenario then I think the definition
> of node/host multihoming should be redefined/extended. For example,
>
> "A multihomed node is a network node that has multiple global IP  
> addresses."
>
> (Well, yes, it becomes quite simple in this case :)). And then it  
> can be
> spliced and splitted into HoAs, CoAs, multiple/single interface  
> scenarios
> if necessary for some kind of discussion.
>
> If there is disagreement then I don't mind but I would like to know  
> the
> reason.

I'm not sure how realistic your case is. However, IPv6 does not  
prohibit assigning multiple addresses on an interface regardless of  
which prefix.
Therefore, I don't mind if we support this. From the solution point  
of view, there is no difference.

regards,
ryuji

> Regards,
> Gabor
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monami6 mailing list
> Monami6@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6
>

_______________________________________________
Monami6 mailing list
Monami6@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/monami6