RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Tony Hain wrote:

> > So far, the people with the deep pockets haven't entered the
> > v6 arena. If and when they do, they'll get their routes in
> > the DFZ, whether we like it or not.

> This is the bottom line to:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-03.txt

> To a first order I don't care what PI mechanism we end up with, but it
> is very clear that one will happen. If we do nothing it will simply be
> random holes punched in the PA space.

Actually holes in PA space is perfectly fine for the network, as you can
filter the more specifics and still have connectivity. However, it is
not so great for the organization using the addresses since this doesn't
address all failure modes.

> I have continued working on the particular proposal because even the
> minimal implementation decouples the 120 degree regions that would cover
> EMEA/AsiaPac/Americas. This has value and does not require a deployment
> to cover the problem of an individual connection terminating outside its
> natural geo region. At the same time, it is conceivable that the 200+
> existing exchange points and private peering connections would allow the
> scaling to be much better than the simple 3.

We did discuss this proposal at length on a different mailinglist. My
view was that it needs to address the problem of address density at the
poles and the fact that the aggregation boundaries don't fit either
topology or geography. This could be done by having several instances of
this address space and have two places that would otherwise be
aggregated together sit in a different instance. By rotating the axes
and limiting everything to (say) from -60 to +60 degrees you eliminate
the pole problem.

Still, there is one unanswered question: what problem is solved by
having such a close relationship between geography and address space?