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

["Poul-Henning Kamp" <]

In message <20030304161229.G15927@localhost>, Gert Doering writes:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 04:07:58PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> >It means re-thinking some established ways to do things - things that 
>> >have caused large problems in the past, and might not have been an overly 
>> >good idea to start with.
>> 
>> Well, but those "established ways of doing things" may also happen
>> to be exactly why we could deploy IPv4 in the first place, and their
>> absense have provably hampered IPv6 deployment.
>
>Yes, of course we can stay on IPv4 with NAT and double-NAT and dynamic
>IPs for customers and whatever kludges are necessary...
>
>Changing over to IPv6 *is* painful.

I'm mainly talking about the lack of a feasible way for end-customers
to get working multi-homing.  This ties directly into the "PI" space
question.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@localhost         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.