Subject: Re: V6ops: IPv6 site multihoming best practices

From: Daniel Roesen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:28:54 +0100

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:47:37PM -0500, Dwight Jamieson wrote:
> In the absence of mature protocol support for site multi-homing (shim6),

shim6 is not a site multihoming protocol, and that's the one of the
biggest problems of it. shim6 is (supposed to be) host multihoming.

> what are the best practice recommendations for an enterprise or service
> provider?

Use BGP for what it was designed. To connect autonomous systems in the
routing domain. There is no alternative yet, and none in sight.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email-masked] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:24:51 +0100

> biggest problems of it. shim6 is (supposed to be) host multihoming.

Actually, it is supposed to be for hosts inside multihomed sites,
and I would maintain that it *is* a site multihoming solution, but
implemented in the host TCP/IP stack. But it isn't yet fully specified
and deployed, so naturally there are not yet best practice
recommendations. We know that its interaction with traffic engineering
practices still has to be defined.

However, that discussion belongs over in shim6.

> routing domain. There is no alternative yet, and none in sight.

We know that doesn't scale, and that was the reason the multi6 WG
existed and why we converged on a scaleable solution. But if you
need to multihome an IPv6 site today, well, yes, you probably have
to use the techniques described for IPv4 in RFC 4116. Just don't
expect that to work in a 10 billion node network.

     Brian