RE: (multi6) requirements draft comments

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> FWIW, the addressing approach I have outlined allows both the users to
> multihome, and the ISP's not to have to be forced to interconnect -
but it
> does it by using address allocation mechanisms that both sides may not
> like:
> the users have to renumber when they change providers, and the ISP's
have
> to
> give up some control over addressing.

This control issue limits the type of aggregation that we can adopt, in
the sense that aggregates have to somehow match the ownership of
resource. Once we take this constraint into account, it is very unclear
that we can devise an addressing plan that matches the arbitrary graph
resulting of multi-homing. The control issue is also the rubbing point
in explicit routing solutions. Typically, providers don't want users to
decide which of the provider's resource will or will not be used by a
particular set of packets. In fact, this is one of the reasons I like
the model of having multiple addresses for multi-homed sites: by
choosing the address explicitly, the end users can get some of the
benefits of explicit routing.

-- Christian Huitema