This whole discussion is about multihoming, which points out the failure of
the approach to move the multihoming discussion into a separate WG. Multi6
should be closed NOW, and that work should be folded back into the IPv6 WG
so there can be a comprehensive approach to the issues (this is independent
of the fact that the thread in an Ops WG is really about rearchitecting the
Internet). As we stand now, all discussions about multihoming are assumed to
be taking place over there, so we don't recognize the address selection
discussion as being the same thing.
I agree that the issue discussed here is somehow related to multi-homing. However, there is a fundamental difference.
You are proposing to encode local reachability information into the address format and use address selection to prefer those addresses in order to enforce local traffic to stay local.
The problem is that addresses are leaking and the fact that a node
is configured with a "local" address and it has a "local" address in its list
of destination addresses does not mean that both nodes are in the
same local "realm", i.e. there is a logical path to connect them.
So what we have here is a case where you are multihomed with one side that is permanently unreachable from a large portion of the universe.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
