Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 6/1/14, 6:19 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2014, at 9:12 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>> There is no such claim. The only difference between IPv4 and IPv6
>> with regard to multihoming is that IPv6 supports more than one IPv6
>> address on the same interface, whereas some IPv4 implementations
>> don't.
> 
> I would like multihoming to work, and I'd like it to work without
> NAT.   If you would like something else, that's okay.   But my
> impression is that I am not alone in thinking this is a key benefit
> of IPv6 over IPv4, even if it's still not fully baked (RFC 7157
> notwithstanding).

Ted I think you need rethink what you're claiming. for one rfc 6555
makes no claims about ipv6 address selection between multiple addresses.
it in fact sets aside the issue of having more than the two address
familes to chose from. I daresay if you have six v6 routes you probably
don't want to make six requests and see which one is fastest as a
general rule. you'remore likely to do ecmp if you simply treat all
nexthops as though they were equivalent, which you might not want to do
if they aren't (backup via LTE is probably not something you want to
exercise all the time even if it's equivlant speed to your cable
connection because it's more costly and has a datacap).

source address selection based on nexthop is pretty straight forward.
most unixes can do that. invalidating a nexthop when the route should no
longer be used is propertly the domain of routing.  This is not even a
benifit of ipv6 in the sense that it can work in ipv4 as anyone with an
appropriately configured router  can attest (it's what the multihomed
nat box actually does after all).

212.162.4.234
149.11.21.194
62.115.37.146

are all on same router for example.

> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>