North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Daniel Roesen
  • Date: Sat Oct 15 04:45:53 2005

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:52:19PM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> 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'.

Those weren't the "stated requirements" on an alternative multihoming
scheme,, but only the attributes of conventional BGP multihoming.
Please don't lay words into my mouth I didn't say.

> 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.

CIDR didn't have the big disadvantages to operators (at least non that
I can identify, not having personally lived thru the CIDR migration).
Operators DO support scalable multihoming, but it has to deliver what
they want/need. HOW this can be achieved is the task of the IETF and
the REAL challenge. shim6 is only "the easy way out".

Best regards,

CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email protected] -- [email protected] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0