RE: Transport level multihoming

[Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Tony Li wrote:

> 
>  | It's stalling deployment by major infrastructure, and a lot of
>  | people are not buying the line that "we'll fix that bit later".
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I hope you understand the rationale behind this.  Without a scalable
> routing architecture that supports multihoming, it would be foolish to do
> massive address assignments.  Been there, done that, got the IPv4 swamp to
> show for it.  

I do understand and it demonstrates the clear lack of confidence by the IPv6
community that the protocol will deliver what it promises.

That's all very well, but unfortunately the techies are digging their heels in
and implementing NAT based solutions to make things continue (sort of).

What you are saying could (and sometimes is) being interpreted as "well, we've
got Ipv6 to solve all your address space problems, but we haven't figured out
how to properly route it yet.  Come back in (X) months/years when we've figured
it out and then we'll tell you how to deploy it.".

> 
> Regards,
> Tony
> 

I challenge any of you to get on slashdot and successfully defend IPv6 against
its opponents - especially the issue of strong aggregation, core router bloat 
and multi homing.

Sorry to be off topic, but I'm trying to express the sense urgency to see a
solution and frustration of what's happeing in the real world.

Now I'll get off my soapbox. :)

Regards.

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210