RE: Transport level multihoming

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

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> > Sorry, I missed something very important there.  Is it planned to support
> > multihoming exactly as Ipv4 does now?  The policy a couple of years back
> > was very firm.  IPv6 = Strong aggregation, small DFZ.
> 
> yes indeed.  unfortunately, to date, that rather idealistic policy has
> lacked clear technical mechanisms with which to implement it.  and note
> that, as this wg is in the ops area, folk here tend to be rather pragmatic
> about utility and implementability.  
> 
> so, from that, you may be able to infer what this wg is about.

I am beginning to infer that we are talking BGP style solutions much like
current IPv4 practice.

> 
> randy
> 

Could the chair please confirm this significant policy turnaround regarding
relaxation on indiscriminate advertising in the DFZ for IPv6?

If so, I question the credibility of what is being done and can only infer that
the BGP lobby has finally gotten their way.  I will politely leave because my
proposal is very likely no longer valid for the suggested direction.  It will
not be able to fit all the requirements that have been laid down. 

Thanks

I will lay down a wreath or two for IPv6.

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