Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
...
> 
> >       In short, the IP routing topology is NOT closely congruent with the
> > world's geographical topology.  If we assign addresses not congruent
> > with
> > the actual IP routing topology, this tends to increase the number
> > of prefixes in the default-free-zone (which is generally understood
> > to be a bad property).
> 
> Are you saying the IPv6 routing table should only contain PA routes (this
> is current 6bone policy)? I don't think this is a sustainable position in
> the long run. And if we are going to do PI, doing it in a way that at
> least potentially supports aggregation would be good.

The last sentence is clearly true, but you are making assumptions
that multihoming will be solved in a particular way in the second sentence.
That presupposes a result from the multi6 debate, before that debate
has even started.

So for now, yes the BGP4+ table should only contain PA routes, until we
have a better solution to aggregation than that.

  Brian