Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>]

While I agree that it may not be entirely necessary for the real deployment of
IPv6, it is IPv6 opponents that continually use it to denigrate IPv6.  So
that's why I said "thorn in the side" instead of a "gaping wound" :)  These
people are the kinds of people who have strong influence in teh spheres of
power.  Until they are silenced once and for all, they whittle away trying to
reduce any progress that IPv6 would make.

Peter


On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Tim Chown wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 08:24:48AM +1100, Peter Tattam wrote:
> > 
> > One thing still remains clear though - multihoming is the thorn in the side for
> > IPv6.  Until it is finalized, IPv6 will be going nowhere.
> 
> Is it really that big a thorn?
> 
> To play devil's advocate...
> 
> What proportion of Internet sites are multihomed?  Academia generally isn't,
> not to the universities, although the NRENs will have multiple peerings.
> 
> What proportion of Internet enterprise sites are mission critical?  My home
> or small business DSL/cable network certainly isn't multihomed, in the
> access network at least.   Itojun is a rare example with four home /48's,
> I think :)
> 
> How frequently are multihomed sites calling on their resilient links?  Of
> course ISPs like to sell additional connectivity.
> 
> How much of the IPv4 DFZ clutter is due to multihomed sites?  
> 
> Are 3GPP systems using IPv6 in Release 5 multihomed?
>  
> I don't see lack of multihoming stopping deployment to academic networks
> (many 10's of millions of users), or to broadband home networks.  There's
> a potentially big IPv6 market in the latter.
> 
> Multihoming is important, but is it that important?
> 
> Tim
> 
> 

--
Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210