Re: An idea: GxSE

[RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>]

At 11:30 25/06/01, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>        i agree discussion is a fine thing, but when we have a goal to settle,
>        sometimes we need to limit ourselves to achieve that goal.  multi6
>        charter clearly says that, i believe...

        Limiting ourselves so that we rule out possible solutions
pre-maturely is not helpful to actually achieving the goal.

>        there are a lot of IPv6 implementation already out of the door.
>        we need to concentrate ourselves to *operational* solution that are
>        deployable on implementation that are available today (= NO NEW CODE).
>        of course, it is just my opinion.  thanks.

        It is also not required by the charter that only "no new code"
approaches be discussed here.  It is also the case that, compared with
IPv4 deployment, IPv6 deployment is quite small.  As a vendor, I can't
find *any* potential IPv6 customers that aren't members of the set 
{Japan, GSM/WCDMA operators, GSM/WCDMA systems integrators}.  I hope
this will change, but that seems to be today's reality for paying
customers.

        Myself, I doubt that any approach that is operationally
practical and resolves the IDR routing table issues caused by
multi-homing can be found that requires "no new code".  I'd be
tickled pink if someone demonstrated such an approach, but haven't
heard about one here so far...

Yours,

Ran
rja@inet.org