<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

RE: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing

  • To: "'Måns Nilsson'" < >
    < >
    < >
  • From: "Jeroen Massar" < >
  • Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:53:00 +0100
  • Organization: Unfix
Måns Nilsson wrote:

> * If it due to aggressive optimisation design choices is hard 
> or impossible 
>   to get v6 working in an informal but live manner, nobody 
> but a select 
>   few at the big operators will be able to play with it outside the 
>   tunnel playpen. 

Tunnels are just one of the _transitions methods_ for the endusers,
that they where also used to bind together the 6bone is something else.
The bigger and IPv6 aware ISP's are quickly moving out of that, read:
http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt

I also am wondering how people define "multihoming".
Do they define it as:
 - Multiple prefixes over multiple cables from multiple upstreams.
 - One prefix over multiple cables from multiple upstreams.
 - One prefix over one cable from multiple upstreams.

If you are talking about the last case, where one only has one
physical upstream... one shouldn't call that multihoming.
I guess the second one is where people are talking about.
And the first one is what I would call real multihoming,
though one needs SCTP to make that work.

Greets,
 Jeroen
  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>