![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
> > There is also a potential scaling issue of using multiple addresses > > as general purpose multihomging mechanism. This is because if this > > is the case, most of the Internet hosts will end up with multiple > > addresses. > > I don't see why this is inherently a problem. it's a problem because it's essentially asking the sending host to do routing in the absence of any routing information. if multiple addresses are available for a host, the chances are good that the paths associated with some of those addresses are significantly better, or worse, than others. with IPv4 multihoming, the routing system sorts out which path to use. this doesn't work perfectly but at least the decision is made in light of some information about the nature and current state of those paths. with IPv6 multihoming, the sending host is just guessing. it's difficult to believe that this will work well.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.