RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

Eliot,

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> Nothing like 60 messages in one day after nothing
> in 6 months ;-)

On the ipv6mh list we averaged 140 posts a month over 8 months, nothing
new to us. This list has been asleep for too long, you just forgot what
is was.


> By the way, Michel, when we use the term tunnel, in any form,
> we really ought to revisit existing technology to see if it
> can be adopted.  Thus Noel's allusion to MIPv6.

In that context, I'm all for it. When you look at MHAP, one of the base
mechanisms is MIPv6-like anyway (the rendezvous points).


> I'm not convinced.  I think we have to consider Craig's
> complexity question, but at the same time ask him what
> he's willing to pay for redundancy for his service, and
> what sort of redundancy he needs.

I don't think this is a fair question to Craig, because he is between
the rock and the hard place. Cisco MUST have an IPv6 internal network
just to save the face.
That being said, what we hear from large companies whose business in not
to sell routers is that they already got the (IPv4) multihoming solution
they want, so why bother with an inferior (IPv6) solution, especially
when almost nobody's asking for it?


> The *real* cost I want to understand is how much someone is
> willing to pay to have fine grain control over their policy
> as they do today with BGP, padding, etc.

We have raised this question before and the answer is that large
customers would be willing to pay large RIR fees for it *if* there was
customer demand (the RIRs would then give a break to operators that have
to support the infrastructure).

Michel.