Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]

["Marshall Eubanks" <tme () multicasttech com>]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:41:51 -0400
 John Payne <john () sackheads org> wrote:
> 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.

No, I would say it is due to the lack of an audience that can _only_  be reached
(or even _best_ be reached) using IPv6.

Once the audience is there, the content providers will follow.

Regards
Marshall

> 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?