RE: On the use of multiple PA prefixes or a single PI prefix for IPv6 multihoming

Brian,

> > Agreed.  Even if you did this, then you would need some sort of mechanism
> > to evaluate the paths after determining reachability. I know some people
> > have discussed a next generation trace route that would collect statistics
> > about the hops along a particular path.  Put that onto your "cartesian ping bomb"
> > and you might have a solution, but at what cost?
> 
> It seems to me that this is one of those separable functional
> components we've been talking about, i.e. the one that triggers
> a multihoming event. In Version 1 that component would issue a
> trigger when connectivity vanishes for more than N seconds; in
> version 2 it might do so when QOS drops below some threshold for
> more than N seconds; in version 3 it might do so when observed
> QOS drops below presumed QOS for an alternative path for more
> than N seconds. The critical interface to be standardized isn't
> any of that; it's the "trigger multihoming now" protocol or API,
> IMHO.

So, multihoming triggering mechanisms are out of scope for Multi6,
except for link failure ... I would agree that the API should be
out of scope.

thanks,
John