Re: IPv6 news

[Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:52:19PM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> The alternative is a multihoming scheme that does not require a  
> prefix per site.  But that doesn't match the stated requirement of  
> 'conventional', 'proven', 'working' [sic], 'feature-complete'.

Those weren't the "stated requirements" on an alternative multihoming
scheme,, but only the attributes of conventional BGP multihoming.
Please don't lay words into my mouth I didn't say.

> The operational community needs to reach consensus on what its  
> priorities are.  We fought the CIDR wars to keep the routing  
> subsystem working and the operational community were the primary  
> backers of that.  To not support scalable multihoming is to reverse  
> that position entirely.

CIDR didn't have the big disadvantages to operators (at least non that
I can identify, not having personally lived thru the CIDR migration).
Operators DO support scalable multihoming, but it has to deliver what
they want/need. HOW this can be achieved is the task of the IETF and
the REAL challenge. shim6 is only "the easy way out".


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr () cluenet de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0