Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> > 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.

I think the debate has started some two years ago, when this wg was
formed. Unfortunately, the debate hasn't finished yet. The way I see it
is that we really need some level of working multihoming in IPv6 to get
it deployed, and probably in a way that doesn't require much
renumbering, preferably none, for large organizations. Guess what? PI
does that, and nothing else is even on the horizon. So either IPv6
remains a playpen for several more years, or we get some form of PI.

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

So far, the people with the deep pockets haven't entered the v6 arena.
If and when they do, they'll get their routes in the DFZ, whether we
like it or not.

If there was another solution that could be deployed in (say) two years,
that would make things different...