North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Tony Li
  • Date: Sat Oct 15 00:56:11 2005

But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and
it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry
on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional,
proven, working, feature-complete way we're used to... until IETF

there is no hope in having operators explain to ietf that the current path
is fruitless? certainly they can be made to see the light, yes?

Doubtful. The IETF was operating under the impression that having a scalable routing subsystem was paramount. Do you think operators can be made to see that light?

Implementing IPv6 multihoming the "conventional" way guarantees that we end up with one prefix per site, and as the need for multihoming reaches deeper into the population, the growth rate of the routing table would surpass even the growth rate of the Internet itself.

The alternative is a multihoming scheme that does not require a prefix per site. But that doesn't match the stated requirement of 'conventional', 'proven', 'working' [sic], 'feature-complete'.

The operational community needs to reach consensus on what its priorities are. We fought the CIDR wars to keep the routing subsystem working and the operational community were the primary backers of that. To not support scalable multihoming is to reverse that position entirely.