
	Where results make sense

Topic: IPv6 multihoming

Related Topics

IPv6

IPv4 address exhaustion

NAT

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

IP

Alternate DNS root

In the News (Thu 12 Nov 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Multihoming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Multihoming is a technique to increase the reliability of the internet connection of an IP network.
		Another problem to look out for is that multihoming too small a network may not be effective since route filtering is very common among BGP users and smaller prefixes may be filtered out.
		Multihoming in the next-generation IPv6 protocol is not yet standardized, as discussions about the various possible approaches to multihoming are still unresolved.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/IPv6_multihoming (249 words)

	IPv6 - Open Encyclopedia (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		IPv6 is version 6 of the Internet Protocol; it was initially called IP Next Generation (IPng) when it was picked as the winner in the IETF's IPng selection process.
		Although IPv6 was adopted by the IETF as the successor to IPv4 over ten years ago (in 1994), worldwide IPv6 deployment as a publicly-accessible internet is still only a few percent [1] of the size of the worldwide IPv4 Internet [2].
		IPv6 addresses, as defined by RFC 2373 and RFC 2374, are 128 bits long; this corresponds to 32 hexadecimal digits, which are normally used when writing IPv6 addresses, as described in the following section.
	open-encyclopedia.com /IPv6 (1199 words)

	IPv6 -- Facts, Info, and Encyclopedia article (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		IPv6 is version 6 of the (additional info and facts about Internet Protocol) Internet Protocol; it was initially called IP Next Generation (IPng) when it was picked as the winner in the (additional info and facts about IETF) IETF's IPng selection process.
		Although IPv6 was adopted by the IETF as the successor to IPv4 over ten years ago (in 1994), worldwide IPv6 deployment as a publicly-accessible internet is still only a few percent of the size of the worldwide IPv4 Internet.
		IPv6 addresses, as defined by (additional info and facts about RFC 2373) RFC 2373 and (additional info and facts about RFC 2374) RFC 2374, are 128 bits long; this corresponds to 32 (additional info and facts about hexadecimal) hexadecimal digits, which are normally used when writing IPv6 addresses, as described in the following section.
	www.absoluteastronomy.com /encyclopedia/i/ip/ipv61.htm (1726 words)

	IPv6 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The primary change from IPv4 to IPv6 is the length of network addresses, with IPv6 addresses being 128 bits long (as defined by RFC 2373 and RFC 2374).
		IPv6 addresses are usually composed of two logical parts: a 64-bit network prefix, and a 64-bit host-addressing part, which is often automatically generated from the interface MAC address.
		When IPv6 connectivity is desired from behind a NAT device, many of which do not forward proto-41 packets properly, one may use the Teredo protocol[8] or AYIYA protocols which encapsulates IPv6 over IPv4's User Datagram Protocol (UDP).
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/IPv6 (2152 words)

	Paul Jakma's Weblog : Weblog (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		The recent discussion on nanog shows that the IPv6 multihoming problem is an intractable as ever.
		Further, without multihoming, the chances of there being any real customer demand for IPv6 are 0, and the operators are waiting for customer demand before expending resources on seriously deploying IPv6 infrastructure.
		IPv6, though far from perfect, does have the huge advantage of almost unlimited address space, providing 2^64 of routable address space.
	blogs.sun.com /roller/page/paulj?entry=the_ipv6_multihoming_conundrum_p (698 words)

	RFC 3178 (rfc3178) - IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers
		As IPv6 addresses are 4 times larger in bit width than IPv4, the routing table size issue would have more serious negative effects on router memory usage, as well as routing table lookup performance.
		Extensions for IPv6 RFC 2260 is written for IPv4 and BGP.
		Using RFC 2260 with IPv6 and RIPng It is possible to run an RFC 2260-like configuration with RIPng [Malkin, 1997], with careful control of metric.
	www.faqs.org /rfcs/rfc3178.html (2492 words)

	IPv6
		It is expected that IPv4 will be supported until about 2025, to allow time for bugs and system errors to be corrected.
		IPv6 is the second version of the Internet Protocol to be widely deployed, and is forming the basis for future expansion of the Internet.
		In some situations, IPv6 addresses are composed of two logical parts: a 64-bit network prefix, and a 64-bit host-addressing part, which is often automatically generated from the interface MAC address.
	www.brainyencyclopedia.com /encyclopedia/i/ip/ipv6.html (733 words)

	[No title]
		Abstract Multihoming seems to be one of the key pieces for the deployment of IPv6 in the enterprise scenario, but is becoming a frequent Palet, et al.
		Multihoming Motivations Considering the goals for requiring multihoming described in [1], as well as other frequent issues, we can classify the motivations as both technical and non-technical.
		But from the multihoming perspective, in principle, it seems that security and military networks fit into the same category as the enterprise network (for instance, as different networks for the Red and Black ones, and both could be also multihomed).
	www.consulintel.euro6ix.org /ietf/draft-palet-multi6-scenarios-00.txt (2939 words)

	[No title]
		The multihoming strategies in RFC 2260 are aimed at removing (or minimising) the need for routes to be held in the DFZ of the Internet and to minimise the amount of coordination needed between ISPs.
		Routing Support for IPv6 Multihoming Following on from the router renumbering technique just described, an alternative method for hosts to choose their source address, in light of network conditions, is presented in REF _Ref23230638 \n \h [16].
		End to end multihoming is a simple approach whereby multiple addresses are assigned to an interface and the choice of addresses to use is delegated to the application or transport layer.
	www.6net.org /publications/other/multihoming.doc (9167 words)

	UPGRADE: Vol. VI, Issue no. 2, April 2005 (IPv6 - More than A Protocol)
		IPv6 is also seen as an opportunity for European and Asian communication hardware and software providers that have lagged behind North American providers in sales for IPv4 equipment to gain a new advantage.
		Some technologies that can only be deployed in their current form using IPv6 are also generating some expectations, such as the deployment of end-to-end security on the network layer, which requires public addressability that can only be provided by IPv6; or the possibility of providing full multihoming support for small networks or even residential users.
		Multihoming, the ability to obtain connectivity through multiple providers, is the key topic of "Tools for IPv6 Multihoming", by Marcelo Bagnulo-Braun, Alberto García- Martínez and Arturo Azcorra-Saloña.
	www.upgrade-cepis.org /issues/2005/2/upgrade-vol-VI-2.html (4007 words)

	[No title]
		November 2000 Routing support for IPv6 Multi-homing Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
		Introduction The addressing scheme of IPv6 [2] is motivated by the need to perform the aggressive route aggregation required to keep routing tables in the default-free zone of the Internet to a manageable size.
		Other authors eg [3][4], have demonstrated that the "traditional" solution to this problem is incompatible with the route aggregation objectives of IPv6, because it requires the explicit exposure of the prefix of the multi-homed entity in the default-free zone.
	www.watersprings.org /pub/id/draft-bragg-ipv6-multihoming-00.txt (1339 words)

	Site Multihoming in IPv6 (multi6) Internet Drafts (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		Multihoming is an essential component of service for enterprises which are part of the Internet.
		The analysis is done in order to serve as underlaying documentation to the discussions in the "Site multihoming for IPv6" workinggroup of the IETF, who are working to a longerterm solution to some of the issues that arise from doing multihoming in the ways as are described here.
		The intent is to look at how IPv6 multihoming solutions might make the Internet less secure than the current Internet, without studying any proposed solution but instead looking at threats that are inherent in the problem itself.
	www.potaroo.net /ietf/ids-wg-multi6.html (889 words)

	INET'2000: THEME #1: Internet infrastructure technologies
		The motivation behind "8+8" (eight plus eight) IPv6 addresses comes from identifying that the source of many problems regarding multihoming, mobility and renumbering is that routing information included in an address is not independent of the global unique identifier provided by that address.
		In the case of IPv4 the multihoming effort is mainly placed on the intelligence of the network, the routing system, while in the case of IPv6 the multihoming effort is mainly placed on intelligent end-systems.
		IPv6 encapsulation is used to avoid invalidating any existing IPv6 AH [AH] or ESP [ESP] header present in the packet.
	www.isoc.org /inet2000/cdproceedings/posters/230 (4538 words)

	[No title]
		A multihomed site should be able to distribute inbound traffic from particular multiple transit providers according to the particular address range within their site which is sourcing or sinking the traffic.
		A new IPv6 multihoming solution should not be substantially more complex to deploy and operate (for multihomed sites or for the rest of the Internet) than current IPv4 multihoming practices.
		Scalability Current IPV4 multihoming practices contribute to the significant growth currently observed in the state held in the global inter- provider routing system; this is a concern, both because of the hardware requirements it imposes, and also because of the impact on the stability of the routing system.
	www.ietf.org /rfc/rfc3582.txt (1901 words)

	RFC3178 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		RFC 3178 IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers October 2001 o Obtain a portable IPv4 address prefix, and announce it from multiple upstream providers.
		RFC 3178 IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers October 2001 o We are assigned IP address prefixes, Pref-A and Pref-B, from ISP-A and ISP-B respectively.
		RFC 3178 IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers October 2001 One possible way is to negotiate with both ISPs, to allow both Pref-B and Pref-A to be used as source address.
	rfc.net /rfc3178.html (2482 words)

	[No title]
		In IPv4, a multihomed site uses either of the following techniques to achieve better reachability: Hagino & Snyder Informational [Page 1] RFC 3178 IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers October 2001 o Obtain a portable IPv4 address prefix, and announce it from multiple upstream providers.
		It is important to have the secondary link on top of a different medium than the primary link, so that one of them survives link failure.
		Hagino & Snyder Informational [Page 6] RFC 3178 IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers October 2001 One possible way is to negotiate with both ISPs, to allow both Pref-B and Pref-A to be used as source address.
	www.isi.edu /in-notes/rfc3178.txt (2538 words)

	[No title]
		Instead, once a WIMP session is established, the IPv6 FlowID is used to hold an identifier for the WIMP host-pair context associated with a given packet.
		One important thing to note about the host-centric multihoming solution is that it doesn't appear to provide any ability for transport connections to survive a change in the topology that causes a host to become unreachable at an address that is currently used as a connection end-point.
		This document proposes to support site multihoming in IPv6 by assigning additional /32 prefixes and AS numbers to "groups" of providers who will provide multihomed /48 prefixes to their mutual customers.
	www.potaroo.net /drafts/draft-huston-multi6-proposals-00.xml (2819 words)

	[6bone] Roadmap to IPv6 multihoming: no PI addresses.
		If everybody used ipv6 instead of ipv4 right now, we would probably have less prefixes than today.
		Im not sure really how big/the usage of a ipv6 /35 is if you compare it to a ipv4 /16.
		Some enterprises do need multihoming: stockexchanges, banks etc. Only allowing isp's to be multihomed is crap.
	mailman.isi.edu /pipermail/6bone/2002-May/005514.html (1014 words)

	Site Multihoming in IPv6 (multi6) Charter (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		A multihomed site is a site that has more than one connection to the
		Multihoming today is done largely by having a site obtain a dedicated
		IPv6 differs from IPv4 in ways that may allow for
	www.ietf.org /html.charters/multi6-charter.html (611 words)

	[6bone] Roadmap to IPv6 multihoming: no PI addresses. (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		Next message: [6bone] Roadmap to IPv6 multihoming: no PI addresses.
		It is a legitimate demand for any size site to be multihomed, especially the small that uses cheesy technology.
		A large routing table favors big operators, because they are the only ones that can afford to buy the GSR or M160 that gets the job done.
	mailman.isi.edu /pipermail/6bone/2002-May/005515.html (344 words)

	gmane.ietf.multi6
		I sincerely hope that the shim6 effort that is now well underway will result in a workable solution for many sites that are interested in multi-homing their networks.
		It is also an objective of this exercise to identify common aspects of this domain of study, and also to provide a framework that can allow exploration of some of the further implications of various architectural extensions that are intended to support multi-homing.
		This document describes some implementation strategies for multihoming with IPv4 and enumerates features for comparison with other multihoming proposals (particularly those related to IPv6).
	blog.gmane.org /gmane.ietf.multi6 (1025 words)

	IPv6, Internet Protocol version 6
		Jumbograms are relevant only to IPv6 nodes that may be attached to links with a link MTU greater than 65,575 bytes, and need not be implemented or understood by IPv6 nodes that do not support attachment to links with such large MTUs.
		An address that is assigned to an interface on a specified link.
		Defines IPv6 modifications for the socket programming library.
	www.networksorcery.com /enp/protocol/ipv6.htm (1317 words)

	RFC 3582 (rfc3582) - Goals for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		Continued growth of both the Internet and the practice of site- multihoming will seriously exacerbate this stress.
		Impact on Hosts The solution should not destroy IPv6 connectivity for a legacy host implementing RFC 3513 [3], RFC 2460 [4], RFC 3493 [5], and other basic IPv6 specifications current in April 2003.
		The multihoming solution may allow host or application changes if that would enhance transport-layer survivability.
	www.faqs.org /rfcs/rfc3582.html (1872 words)

	The Internet Report
		The Internet Report: A Summary of Standards and Protocols Proposed by the IETF
		Things MULTI6 Developers should think about (29640 bytes)
		Threats relating to IPv6 multihoming solutions (82185 bytes)
	ietfreport.isoc.org /ids-wg-multi6.html (769 words)

	RFC Index 3101 - 3200 - RFC Database - eLook.org (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		RFC 3122 - Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse Discovery Specification
		RFC 3146 - Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 1394 Networks
		RFC 3175 - Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 Reservations
	www.elook.org /computing/rfc/index32.html (718 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)