RE: Comments/questions about the assumptions [Was: Re: Revised proposed BOF charter, problem statement, and agenda]

["Tao Wan" <twan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

2007/3/7, Narayanan, Vidya <vidyan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> In addition to what Paul has said, there is one more point. In the 
> case of solutions that are transparent to the client,  there may be 
> one gateway that is actively serving as a "primary" gateway and one or

> more gateways acting as "backup" gateways; one of the backup gateways 
> takes over for the primary (i.e., assumes the IP address of the 
> primary and acquires all the clients that were being served by the 
> primary) when the primary gateway fails. This essentially leads to the

> situation where all these gateways are capable of serving the same set

> of subnets (i.e., have associations with the same DHCP servers) and 
> hence, more or less restricts the geographic distribution of these
gateways.

I don't agree with this conclusion: if I take again my example of
solution based on MIPv6, the "real" IP addresses of the SGs are the CoA
and the SGs may be distributed in a large scale.

[Tao] In addition to MIPv6, anycast routing also allows geographically 
      distributed servers to share common IP addresses. For example,
some 
      of the root DNS servers are using this method for load balancing 
      and robustness.