> So one of IPv6's multihoming approaches is no worse than IPv4,
> while another appears to be significantly better.
...in terms of its impact on the routing system. it's not clear
that having multiple addresses per host is significantly better
for applications in general.
my guess is that so
> architecture. That accusation is false, and nothing in IPv6 prevents
> the use of the same, lousy multihoming solution we have today for IPv4.
Just for the record, I was *not* suggesting that IPv4 solves the
multihoming problem (I said nothing about it one way or the other).
I understand th
Thomas Narten writes:
| The point of the IPv6 addressing architecture is to make that
| sort of multihoming a _possibility_ and an _optimization_ rather
| than a _requirement_.
In a purely technical sense, redundancy of any sort is
an _optimization_ rather than a _requirement_. There
is absolu
> Sean said that traditional multihoming would be "very difficult".
Actually, Sean's statement was that "IPv6's current addressing
architecture" makes multihoming very difficult, and that is the point
that is untrue.
> You replied that "This is not true" (which I take to mean
> that multihoming
Paul Francis wrote:
> Sean said that traditional multihoming would be "very difficult".
>
> You replied that "This is not true" (which I take to mean
> that multihoming is not very difficult), and then go on to describe
> something that sounds very difficult to me (maintain longer prefixes,
> mak
