On 11/10/2012 10:37, Tim Chown wrote: > On 1 Oct 2012, at 22:14, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> As far as I can tell, multihoming is not mentioned in the homenet charter, >> but it is discussed in draft-ietf-homenet-arch, without a clear conclusion. >> There is an argument for a specific analysis document on this topic, before >> we discuss our favourite solutions. > > A homenet arch -05 is about to be published. > > As Brian says, there is a brief section in the arch text about multihoming, > which we believe captures all that needs to be said. The section tries to > describe the architectural implications of different approaches in the > context of the architecture goals. For example, nothing in the architecture > should preclude use of shim6, if the hosts support it. > > If people have specific comments on 3.2.4 where this is contained, please > make them and we can consider those.
" Host-based methods such as Shim6 [RFC5533] have been defined, but of course require support in the hosts." Perhaps you should mention MPTCP here too. My concern about the whole section is that it leaves things open; it would be better if the architecture could suggest an immediately available solution, as well as leaving open alternative solutions for the future. I think that draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat is the closest thing we have to an immediately available solution, and it's in the RFC Editor queue. Nit: your reference to this I-D in homenet-arch-04 is broken. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
