Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66 WGLC

[<[e-mail]>]

Wikipedia seems to have something to say this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multihoming , covering both our described cases here.. e.g.
--
There are several ways to multihome, separate from the actual protocols used to do so, amongst which the most important are:

Multiple Interfaces, Single IP address per interface:
The host has multiple interfaces and each interface has one, or more, IP addresses. If one of the links fails, then its IP address becomes unreachable, but the other IP addresses will still work. Hosts that have multiple AAAA or A records enabled can then still be reachable at the penalty of having the client program time out and retry on the broken address. Existing connections can't be taken over by the other interface, as TCP does not support this. To remedy this, one could use SCTP which does allow this situation. However SCTP is not used very much in practice.

Multiple Links, Single IP address (Space):
This is what in general is meant with Multihoming. With the use of a routing protocol, in most cases BGP, the end-site announces this address space to its upstream links. When one of the links fails, the protocol notices this on both sides and traffic is not sent over the failing link any more. Usually this method is used to multihome a site and not for single hosts.
--

Teemu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Randy Bush [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 28. helmikuuta 2011 22:21
> To: Joel Jaeggli
> Cc: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-MS/Tampere); [e-mail]; v6ops-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66 WGLC
> 
> >> uh oh!  i think i get it.  this is trying to give a new meaning to the
> >> word 'multi-homing' which has been in wide use for a few decades.  it
> >> means bgp routing with multiple peers (a punny word meaning both any
> >> arbitrary bgp neighbor and alternatively one where you only exchange
> >> your customers' routes).
> >>
> >> can we please use a new, or at least different, word here?
> >
> > Theoretically the MIF working-group should be working on that definition
> > if I correctly understand their charter.
> 
> and, until then, in a droid-like attack, we compound the confusion.
> layer four switching here we come.  multi-attached?
> 
> randy