RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> On the other hand, it can also be argued that we have failed miserably if
> we don't end up with demand for this network because it cannot address
> baseline requirements for business.  That's the path we head down with
> multi-PA.
> 
> Noel asked if I could suggest any other mechanisms.  So far, all of the
> multi-homing solutions I can think of that are implementable with current
> code do not address the requirements that enterprises have:
> 
> * simple to implement and operate for the enterprise
> * network infrastructure visibility into alternative paths such that
>   policy decisions may be made on paths by the infrastructure, not the
>   host
> * unique, host-aware end-to-end addresses so poorly-written applications
>   (in use in IPv4 today) will work
> 
> Given that, the only solutions I can think of require changes to code,
> whether router or host, network or transport or application layer.  This
> code change will require time.  This time delays adoption and makes IPv6
> continue to stagnate.
> 
> I believe we need to come up with something now, with the current amount
> of energy behind IPv6, in order to bring these large enterprises on board.
> Otherwise, we will continue to build a great experimental network with
> little business value to anyone except the academic community.

this group is chartered to refine and explore solutions to the
problems of large-scale multihoming in ipv6.  it is not chartered
to do ipv6 marketing.  and, while it would be nice to use existing
code, that is not a constraint (and i suspect that, if it were,
this group would likely fail).

randy