Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

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

> Craig,

> I would love to be able to agree with you. Of course I do agree
> that multi-homing is a must-have. But we just can't put the BGP4+
> table on the exponential path. It's very unfortunate that this WG
> has made no progress on resolving that dilemma.

I figured the whole geographical aggregation thing was a step in the
right direction...

I'll be sending the draft to the IETF later today or tomorrow (just
waiting for some last minute feedback) but I guess it's ready:

http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-geo-aggr-00.txt

(The title is now "Geographical Aggregation to Support Multihoming in
IPv6", this used to be "Geo For Now" (GFN).)

> New thinking is needed here if we are not to reproduce the old
> problems.

Some face-to-face discussion would also be good. How do we get multi6
stuff on the agenda for Atlanta?

Iljitsch