Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> > with IPv4 multihoming, the routing system
> > sorts out which path to use. this doesn't work perfectly but at least
> > the decision is made in light of some information about the nature and
> > current state of those paths. with IPv6 multihoming, the sending host is
> > just guessing. it's difficult to believe that this will work well.
>
> That's why you add some feedback-based smarts to the address-order
> selection scheme, and overlap the connection attempts (perhaps
> separating them by an RTT or so).
I agree that this is not difficult (I've done it before, for weird reasons).
But it doesn't solve the problem of what happens if the route you chose
becomes worse (or unavailable) during the lifetime of your connection, or if
the other one becomes better.
> Given how hard it is to get an ISP do to anything special for you
> these days, I really can't see a routing-system-based multihoming
> actually scale down to, say, individual SOHO networks being
> multihomed
It happens today: if I buy service from a multihomed ISP, I get the benefits
of their multihoming for free. (If you're talking about multiple links to my
home from different providers, then it's irrelevant; in that case, I'd have to
handle the multihoming on site anyway.)
--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp. |A successful tool is one that was used to do |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|something undreamed of by its author. |
\==============================================================/
