Re: Network layer reqt? [was Re: Transport level multihoming]

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Ohta-san,

...
> > Restoring
> > network level connectivity after an outage is necessary and sufficient.
> 
> It is often very complex to build into an application system.

Yes, but my point is that for the apps that need it, this was done
years ago. I have no problem with offering something better
for future apps, but we have to live with the old ones. Apps are
*not* going to be rewritten for IPv6.

> > > Note also that you are assuming large, thus, slow to converge,
> > > routing table.
> >
> > Unfortunately that is the only safe assumption, until we find a multihoming
> > solution that doesn't punch holes.
> 
> Considering that there virtualy is NO install base of IPv6, we
> can assume anything.

If we deploy IPv6 on today's model - punching holes
to multihome - then we *will* get a massive routing table. 
That's 100% certain. The only way to avoid it is to avoid
punching holes. But we shouldn't talk about how to do that
until we have agreed on the requirements.

    Brian