[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
Masataka Ohta mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Sun Mar 9 09:51:37 CET 2003
Kurt; > > - what ideas do we have regarding multihoming, what is/should be > > deprecated and what preferred ? > > Uh, uhm. There are quite a lot of ideas. Actually there is no problem > with shortage of ideas. There is shortage on agreement to move forward > though. Personally I (and many others) believe in a GSE like solution, > 8+8 or 16+16 but that needs a lot more work so there is some meat on > the bones. See the multi6 WG discussions in the IETF or the ipv6mh > mailinglist. Multihoming is simple to just let hosts have multiple addresses, which is already done with IPv6, and let the hosts choose the destination address. The hard part is that there are a lot of works wrongly done with IPv6. It is wrong, for example, to have source address selection, router/host separation and complicated but poor mobility, all of which must be removed. The removal is technically easy but was politically difficult, as some people were insisting that IPv6 would be deployed immediately if the current specificaiton had been kept as is. Three years ago, they were insisting so for five years. Though I haven't checked activities of IPv6 WG for these three years, I hope they have finally give up now. There already is running code of of 8+8, transport over it, such as TCP, and applications over it, such as TCP multihomed telephony with no address reselection latency, that there is not much work remaning. Just choose it or something, if any, else. Masataka Ohta PS Never mention poor GSE. It is a poor idea useless for any purpose.
[ lir-wg Archives ]