[85658] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Li)
Sat Oct 15 00:55:06 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0510150313300.26672@parapet.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:52:19 -0700
To: Christopher L.Morrow <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
>> 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.
Tony
