>
> * This started off a thread in private about what
> the address assignment policy for v6 should be. Randy noted also that
> the IESG has asked for a revision to §2.5.6 of
> draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-04.txt to make it classless rather
> than clasful. In other words, the multihoming environment for v6
> is going to be identical to v4, viz. CIDR. TLA/NLA will no
> longer exist.
The removal of the class boundaries in the address does not seem to aignificantly affect how multihoming might operate - what is surely important is the retention (or otherwise) of 'strong aggregation' i.e. that domains will only delegate sub-domain prefixes taken from the addresses which they have been allocated and they will only route packets to/from such sub-domains that have destination/source addresses in the delegated range. If v6 doesn't keep to strong aggregation we will be back in the v4 swamp very quickly.
>
> Wording change for multihoming: "introducing prefixes visible within
> at least two ASes" is a simplistic definition. One might want to
> look at various narrowings of the definition of AS in that over time,
> but solviing that problem is a current issue.
>
>
Should I have seen the document from which the quote is taken? I don't think this phrase should be in a definition of multihoming.
Regards,
Elwyn Davies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elwyn B Davies
Tel: +44 1279 405498 (ESN 742 - 5498)
Email: elwynd@nortelnetworks.com
Technical Strategy Manager - IP Networks
Advanced Routing Technology
Harlow Laboratories
Nortel Networks
London Road
Harlow
Essex
UK
CM17 9NA
"The Folly is mostly mine"
and the opinions are mine and not those of my employer.
==================================================================================