RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Craig,

> Craig A. Huegen wrote:
> Adoption of IPv6 in enterprises REQUIRES multihoming. It's not a
> "nice-to-have".  Without it, IPv6 in enterprises is limited to
> the labs.  If this means we have to accept some type of PI
> addressing in the near-term, then so be it, with the condition
> that those using it are given time frame <x> to migrate to the
> Ultimate Multihoming Solution in the future.

I have come to agree with this compromise. Reality check: IPv6 does not
exist. It does not exist because I can't get over v6 to www.etrade.com.
I can't get to www.cnn.com. I can't get to www.yahoo.com.

And yes, I can get over v6 to Cisco because I have 6bone tunnels, that's
why I use IPv4.


> As for the original multi-PA multihoming solution, it doesn't
> fly in an enterprise.
> [sniped the reasons]

I agree too. 

> If the goal was to design a theoretical protocol without
> end-user operational considerations that can keep DFZ routing
> tables under 16k prefixes, then we're doing a good job at
> designing multi-homing. If the goal is to gain adoption by and
> reliability for the end users of the IPv6 internet, we're
> failing.

Ditto.

Michel.