[131156] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 =?windows-1252?Q?=97_Unique_local_addres?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Wed Oct 20 22:46:06 2010
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:45:43 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
To: James Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=149f4vv+6X6qx-QKWfEMSGnNSmyQa6qetCVU9@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: matthew@matthew.at
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/20/2010 7:15 PM, James Hess wrote:
>
> Perhaps one day, there will be a truly reliable transport protocol,
> and an API that allows a bind()
> against multiple IPs and a connect()
> to all a target host's IPs instead of just one, so both hosts can
> learn of each other's IP addresses
> that are offered to be used for that connection, then "multiple PA
> IP addresses"
> would be a technically viable multi-homing strategy.
That protocol already exists and is installed on almost every personal
computer in the world... but there's alas there's still a lot of TCP out
there.
By the way, the problems you listed are some, but not all, of the
reasons why it isn't really a viable multi-homing strategy... but yours
also include some of the reasons why having ULA + globally-routed space
both active would be a problem for many applications.
Matthew Kaufman
