Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI

["Oliver Bartels" <]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI? 

The better solution is the enemy of the good solution.

If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming
and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for
those who requires this functionallity.

Thus they won't use IPv6.

Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me.

And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium
size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not
providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status:

A technical playground for technically interested people.

>They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are 
>doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space.

Could you please explain this a bit more in detail ?
To me this sounds like "engines will never fly".

>Last I checked around there were some promissing new proposal on the 
>way for how to solve this very basic problem. 

Could you please be a bit more verbose.

>And in the meantime, drop 
>the thought about multihoming and PI space, start to think about other 
>ways to use the possibility IPv6 give us.

Hmm, please let me translate:
"Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a single
horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving,
start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car
gives us."

Sound like newspeak:
If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the problem.

Best Regards
Oliver



Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
oliver@localhost + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0