RE: A new spin on multihoming: multihoming classes.

[Michel Py <py_michel@yahoo.com>]

--- Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Michel Py wrote:
>>>> This is true, but keep in mind that a bad
solution
>>>> is better than no
>>>> solution. There are people that don't want to
>>>> adopt IPv6 today because
>>>> there is no multihoming solution.
>> I'd like to disagree.  I think, for most people,
>> this is just a _good excuse_ not to adopt IPv6;
>> they really don't want to yet, as there is
>> little incentive other than being on the cutting
>> edge, and preparing for
>> the days when clients start to enable IPv6.

I agree with that, but the fact that the lack of
a multihoming solution is used as an excuse does
not change the outcome.
 
>> There are ways if people _really_ wanted to get to
>> IPv6.  For example, get multihomed IPv4
connectivity
>> and run tunnels over each of them.

Yep, using 6to4 tunnels. Which makes the problem
worse,
because if they can multihome IPv4 most will find
plenty of excuses to delay IPv6 deployment.

Michel.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com