Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen@cisco.com>]

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

> 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 wouldn't suggest PI as the long-term fix.  Rather, I would suggest that
we use it for adoption and support PI space for the short term, on
condition that it is returned in <x> timeframe when whatever solutions we
come up with are filled out.

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

I agree that new thinking is needed.  At the same time, if any of the new
thinking requires router changes, or even worse, host stack changes, the
protocol continues to stagnate because there are few end-users beyond
research, and single-homed home use.  I'm not proposing that we just say
IPv4 multihoming is the solution and be done with it.  However, it does
give us a few years of breathing room to come up with a real solution.

/cah

---
Craig A. Huegen, Chief Network Architect      C i s c o  S y s t e m s
IT Transport, Network Technology & Design           ||        ||
Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive          ||        ||
San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                ||||      ||||
email: chuegen@cisco.com       CCIE #2100      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..