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

You seem to be far away from the ground realities.

Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real 
issues for a good reason.

Regards,
Salman


At 10:55 AM 11/25/2005 +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote:
><snip>
> > 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.
>
>a very true point in one way but that is again as I see it, we're still
>thinking IPv4 when talking IPv6.
>
>Why do they need multihoming and PI? They don't trust the ISP and vendors
>to deliver them uptime and freedom... isn't this a problem the ISP and
>vendors should try to solve? Of course, the idea of easy renumbering was
>suppose to solve this but again, we're thinking IPv4 so it's not easy to
>understand.
>
>Again, we don't need PI space and multihoming, what we need are a way to
>give the users and GOOD connectivity (uptime, speed etc) and make it easy
>for them to switch providers as they see fit.
>
>
>
><snip>
> >
> > 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.
>
>for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real
>solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those
>possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers etc,
>then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us
>multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create
>connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the
>session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything
>either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since it
>use the extended header of IPv6.
>
>That's just ONE of many possible ways...
>
>
>
>(1) it's a master thesis writting by a student related to University of
>Tromsø as part of the Pasta project, www.pasta.cs.uit.no
>
>--
>
>------------------------------
>Roger Jorgensen             |
>rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no       | - IPv6 is The Key!
>http://www.jorgensen.no      | roger at jorgensen.no
>-------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20051128/8f79ae86/attachment.html>