RE: mh (RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008)

I've been poking around with end-host / end-network multihoming at the
transport and application layers. See, e.g., MONET, a multi-homed Web
proxy designed to achieve high availability:

   MONET - A Multi-homed Overlay NETwork

In general, this kind of end-host informed multihoming has a lot of
potential for improving availability and performance (because the
end-points actually see what they're getting), but at the cost of some
extra implementation complexity. The shim6 mechanism (in the general
sense, not speaking to the specifics of shim6 negotiation, etc.), when
augmented with some end-host smarts, could be a nice way to do


based multihoming in the ipv6 context.

But, isn't that just a host based approach in the end and not a solution
for entire networks? And if it isn't for entire networks, why do I need
any to any connectivity anyway? I know, there's nothing that prevents
it (or any schema like it, including shim6) from being network to
network, but, good grief, what a huge amount of overhead to design
around a requirements flaw. This sort of Moebius strip logic that's
used to explain/solve the problem which has been created is fun to
watch, but really just sucks in the end.

One could argue, however, that we don't need multihoming, we all need to
pour money into CDNs for things we really care about and lets somebody
else do the worrying. . And it all seems like such a hack. Hurray,
network based services are back. The PSTN is dead, long live the PSTN.


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 163