Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260-00.txt

[csmall@eye-net.com.au (Craig Small)]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 05:47:30PM -0500, Andrew Partan wrote:
> Is anyone aware of actual use of rfc2260-style configurations?
> I have not seen its use in networks I've visited, but I'm not sure why.
> 
> [I'm trying to see if this is in use, and if in use, if there were
> any operations problems found, and if not in use, why.]

I'm not sure if you mean people using RFC2260 with IPv4 or IPv6 here.
For v6 in Australia it is very simple: go to one ISP for real IPv6 and 
one hub for 6bone. multi-homing is not really an option. If you meant
IPv4, then there is of course many options.

A client of mine is starting to look at what they can do to provide some
redundancy in their network.  They have mostly servers there rather
than, say, dialup clients so round robin DNS type solutions may cover
most problems.

But we are also looking at something like RFC2260 (and the Cisco variant
of it) to see if that can provide some more robustness. It's still early
days yet. As others have said, it only works for a small subset of
potiential problems.

I can see problems in getting ISPs to agree with going along with the
changes that are required to perform RFC2260.  Some may consider doing
it but a lot would just say no.  That greatly limits the usefulness of
that approach.

You may want to consider that one of the "soft goals" (something that is
nice to have but not essential) of this WG is that the solution(s) have
minimal impact on the upstream ISPs.  The less special things they have
to do for each customer the more likely they will sggest or adopt it.

 - Craig
-- 
Craig Small VK2XLZ  GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE  95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/        <csmall@eye-net.com.au>
MIEEE <csmall@ieee.org>                 Debian developer <csmall@debian.org>