RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Greg Maxwell wrote:

> I've still yet to see an idea here that provided complete multihoming
> (i.e. ones that won't get filtered to uselessness) without either breaking
> aggregation and exploding the DFZ or making transport level changes..

I think http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-geo-aggr-00.txt
(name may change as I submit the draft) or "Geographical Aggregation to
Support Multihoming in IPv6" fits the bill. Sure, there are many reasons
not to like this, but so far I haven't heard any reasons why it wouldn't
_work_. As it provides relief almost immediately without any pain (that
comes later...), I can't see why this (or rather, an address allocation
mechanism supporting it) shouldn't be implemented, unless someone can
present _very_ convincing arguments why all of this is evil.

Iljitsch