Preserving Established Communications in IPv6 Multi-homed Sites with MEX

  • Marcelo Bagnulo
  • Alberto García-Martínez
  • Ignacio Soto
  • Arturo Azcorra
  • Juan F. Rodríguez Hervella
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2899)


A proper support for multimedia communications transport has to provide fault tolerance capabilities such as the preservation of established connections in case of failures. While multi-homing addresses this issue, the currently available solution based in massive BGP route injection presents serious scalability limitations, since it contributes to the exponential growth of the BGP table size. Alternative solutions proposed for IPv6 fail to provide equivalent facilities to the current BGP based solution. In this paper we present MEX (Muti-homing through EXtension header) a novel proposal for the provision of IPv6 multi-homing capabilities. MEX preserves overall scalability by storing alternative route information in end-hosts while at the same time reduces packet loss by allowing routers to re-route in-course packets. This behavior is enabled by conveying alternative route information within packets inside a newly defined Extension Header. The resulting system provides fault tolerance capabilities and preserves scalability, while the incurred costs, namely deployment and packet overhead, are only imposed to those that benefit from it. An implementation of the MEX host and router components is also presented.


Packet Loss Correspondent Node Source Address Destination Address Extension Head 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Huston, G.: Commentary on Inter-Domain Routing in the Internet, RFC 3221 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black, B., et al.: Goals for IP Multihoming Architectures, Internet Draft, work-in-progress (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deering, S.: Internet Protocol, Version 6 Specification, RFC 2460 (December 1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fuller, V., et al.: Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR): An Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy, RFC 1519 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hinden, R., et al.: An IPv6 Aggregatable Global Unicast Address Format, RFC 2374 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson, D., et al.: Mobility Support in IPv6, Internet Draft-Work-in-progress (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conta, A., et al.: Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification, RFC 2463 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomson, S., et al.: IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration, RFC 2462 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carpenter, B.: Architectural Principles of the Internet, RFC 1958 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hagino, J., et al.: IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers., RFC 3178 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huitema, C., et al.: Host-Centric IPv6 Multihoming, Internet Draft-Work-in-progress (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Labovitz, C., et al.: Delayed Internet Routing Convergence, In: ACM SIGCOMM 2000 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcelo Bagnulo
    • 1
  • Alberto García-Martínez
    • 1
  • Ignacio Soto
    • 1
  • Arturo Azcorra
    • 1
  • Juan F. Rodríguez Hervella
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ingeniería TelemáticaUniversidad Carlos III de Madrid 

Personalised recommendations