RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Tony Li wrote:

> Because we've done nothing to eliminate the "tragedy of the commons".
>
> Under this scheme, which alternative is easier for users?  I would
> guess PI space.  And everyone would choose that and then tell us that
> they are sufficiently "special" to get PI space and then we end up
> back where we are today.
>
> A workable architecture has to constrain the users into doing The
> Right Thing automatically.  Because otherwise, users will optimize for
> their own benefit, at the cost of the network.

I agree that it's not something I would propose for all multi-homers.  I
agree there would be some folks who would want PI space when perhaps
multi-PA is indeed workable for them.  So it's all-or-nothing?  I don't
buy that.

The complexity and management of assigning multiple-PA prefixes to my home
network of 6 segments, or my mother's accounting firm with 20 segments, or
even a previous employer's network of 100 segments, is vastly different
than assigning multiple-PA prefixes to a network of tens of thousands of
segments worldwide, with multiple Internet igress/egress points.

I don't think it's just me who believes that IPv6 adoption isn't automatic
in large enterprises today, and is in fact hindered severely at this point
for lack of a multi-homing 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      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..