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

[<[e-mail]>]

> Sure. But I think it's very important to separate the issues
> that apply to multihoming from the issues that are specific to
> multiple interfaces (and both from the issues that are specific
> to mobility). If we don't solve these problems separately we will
> end up with one big mess.

Just to clarify: need to separate issues specific to having multiple prefixes on a single interface from issues having multiple prefixes on different interfaces? Both of which are oftentimes called multihoming..

Would the terminology sound more sensible if we would talk e.g. about a case where: multi-interfaced smartphone is having simultaneous connection to multihomed corporate WLAN network and to cellular connection with a single /64?

(Mobility issues are clearly separate).

> Yes, but nevertheless, you will end up with multiple AAAA records if
> the remote host itself is multihomed - you can't avoid the address
> pair selection problem.

Not even trying to. I count that 6man's revisited-RFC3484 supported by the address selection policy distribution and v6ops Happy Eyeballs helps in that area.

I.e. with improved MIF DNS selection hosts resolve FQDNs to addresses, then with MIF+RFC4191 tools get some routing info and router preferences onboard (covering multiple interfaces), then with revisited 6man RFC3484+related policy distribution has also improved address selection capabilities, and when all that is covered with some v6ops Happy Eyeballs-cream we should have quite a cake to taste:-)

Teemu