Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

["Per Heldal" <]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:11:48 +0100, "Kurt Erik Lindqvist"
kurtis@localhost said:
> 
> On 30 nov 2005, at 17.16, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> 
> > ISPs do exist for customers, not customers do exist  to feed ISPs  
> > in the
> > most convenient way for the ISPs. Some folks seem to forget that,
> > looking at all the discussion trying to ignore the demand for real
> > multihoming (and that includes TE and network-wide routing policy
> > implementation, neither being delivered by things like shim6).
> 
> I think you are contradicting yourself here. Shim6 does give the end- 

s/does/may ? ;)                                                     

> user TE capability. It does not give the ISP the possibility to  
> ignore it, as they could today.

Shim6 is work in progress and may be used as an argument to adjust 
adress-assignment policies sometime in the future. If we want ipv6
deployed today we have to provide a mechanism to support requirements
about redundancy and independence from individual providers.


>                                 I am not sure what you mean with  
> "network-wide routing policy implementation"....

I guess this relates to supporting infrastructure necessary for
shim6 to support or replace current ipv4 technology like 
load-balancing, filtering etc.  If standards are defined today
and everyone agree to implement them asap it will still take years
before such products are available and a commercially viable 
alternative. Shim6 has a potential to provide improved 
"granularity" in traffic management (individual path-selection
for each source-destination HBA-pair) but that is irrelevant until
the technology is actually there.

Bottom line: it's fine to develop technology for the future, but
operational procedures and policies must be supported by current
technology.

//per

-- 
  Per Heldal
  heldal@localhost