[84406] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Mon Sep 12 17:42:29 2005
In-Reply-To: <0F127F0E-CFE3-4486-B1C9-B313989323F8@muada.com>
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:41:51 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of
>> the major content providers are going to do anything serious in the
>> IPv6 arena.
>
> Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I
> don't know if this makes a difference.
I have a very strong feeling that part of the lack of content providers
on IPv6 is due to the lack of multihoming.
Whilst this thread is open... perhaps someone can explain to me how
shim6 is as good as multihoming in the case of redundancy when one of
the links is down at the time of the initial request, so before any
shim-layer negotiation happens.
I must be missing something, but there's a good chance that the
requester is going to have to wait for a timeout on their SYN packets
before failing over to another address to try. Or is the requester
supposed to send SYNs to all addresses for a hostname and race them
off?
