North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IPv6 news
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, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email protected] -- [email protected] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
|