RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Christian de Larrinaga" <cdel@firsthand.net>]

Tim

>
> OK, containment (of the DFZ table size) is certainly a good goal.
>
> But who is actually going to be multihoming with IPv6, and to what extent?
> Perhaps there are now 50,000 large enterprises doing so with IPv4.  Is the
> number of such enterprises going to rise?   What's the change in terms of
> the types of sites multihoming that's pushing the DFZ size up so much?
> Small ISPs?  Smaller enterprises?
>

this is a guess... ok;-)

the size of the ipv6 address space itself is likely to open up multihoming
demand.

for instance if we deploy trillions of embedded networked devices its a fair
assumption that a few hundred million will be considered sufficiently
mission critical as to warrant a redundant IP path even if they have a very
light data load.

now you say 50,000 in ip4 and on very expensive communications links and
limited business applications. What's the proportion of this number
multihoming to the address space in ip4 and would it be valid to apply that
proportion to ipv6? well it might give us something to think about at least.

Also consider that 64k line costs of $20,000 per annum and today dsl of $300
and FTTH potentially of $50 (perhaps without service) what impact then on
demand for multi homing?

We can only guess but my guess is that it would be a mistake to think multi
homing in ipv6 only applies to a few big boys because that's the lesson from
the history of big iron computing.


Christian
Christian de Larrinaga