Dave:
Comments in-line below..
Dave Crocker wrote:
John,
JCK> but the only realistic solution for someone who needs high
JCK> reliability in that environment is multihoming, and there seems
JCK> to be no hope for multihoming of small-scale networks with IPv4.
There is not much of a solution, today, for either IPv4 _or_ IPv6.
This is just plain silly .. there is a perfectly good solution for
multi-homing.. its called SCTP.. been around since Oct 2000 as
an RFC and the SS7 over IP folks are using it now. Yes it works for
both IPv4 and IPv6 and it will even setup an association (connection
for you TCPites) that includes BOTH IPv4 and IPv6.
It fails over and keeps on working when an interface goes down...
However there are nearly 10 different proposals under consideration in
the IETF, to deal with multihoming. Few are restricted to IPv4.
I have always wondered why we are spinning our wheels in
this multi-homing group when the solution already exists.
Lode Coene has brought this up in the Multi-6 working
group but he seems to be ignored.
You don't need to do anything.. its already there.. just use it.
R
In other words, when there is a serious solution to multihoming -- ie,
being able to preserve a connection when using more than one IP
Address -- it will likely work for IPv4.
Most of these proposals are quite new. No more than a year old and
many less than 6 months.
This does not speak well for anything happening immediately, of
course. However quite a number of the proposals do not require any
significant infrastructure change. This bodes well for rapid
deployment, once they make it through the standards process.
On the other hand, getting the IETF to produce standards track
specifications out of this large pack of candidates could take another
10 years...
d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>
--
Randall R. Stewart
815-477-2127 (office)
815-342-5222 (cell phone)