North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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

  • From: David Andersen
  • Date: Thu Jul 07 13:29:21 2005

On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:09 PM, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
As an easy-to-read overview of the shim6 approach, the following
rough draft may be useful:

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-arch-00.txt

Thanks, I'm fully aware of where shim6 is right now.   I'm asking if
anyone feels this is headed anywhere useful or if we got anything else
we can use to facilitate mh.

To me, this is still a glaring hole as it has been for years now and
nobody seems to be making any fundamental progress here.  Partially
probably because the deck seems to be fundamentally stacked against mh,
which doesn't appear to have been a design criteria in the first place.
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:

http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/ron/ronweb/

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 end-host based multihoming in the ipv6 context.

-Dave