Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>]

    > From: "Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen@cisco.com>

    > The cost of multiple PA/CA/whateveryouwanttocallthem addresses is far
    > too much compared with the return. The complexity of multiple PA
    > prefixes across an infrastructure that has tens of thousands of subnets
    > is phenomenal from an operations perspective.

Well, there are a number of basically feasible paths you can take to support
*widescale* multi-homing. (Supporting it for just Google and a "few" other
sites is not too hard.)

First, you can use multiple connectivity-based addresses. You're saying this
is infeasible. Second, you can re-use a mobility mechanism. Third, you could
use a radical addressing architecture that assigns addresses automatically,
based on actual connectivity topology.

I don't know of any others. Do you? If not, since you don't like multiple
connectivity-based addresses, which of the other two do you prefer?

	Noel