[85664] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Sat Oct 15 04:45:08 2005
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:44:39 +0200
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CF5BCAE4-7F43-4D28-BC64-ED1C7457F4D5@tony.li>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
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: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
