RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> ...
> Let's try this one more time.
> 
> An "address", as used in the IPv4/v6 architectures, is a name 
> that (among other functions) specifies *where* that entity is 
> in the network: i.e. where it is attached to the network's 
> connectivity topology. In other words:
> 
> "geographical address" ->
> "geographical topological-location-name" -> 
> "connectivity-independent topological-location-name" -> 
> "topological-location-independent topological-location-name".
> 
> The latter is, rather obviously, a paradox. Q.E.D.
> 

The missing link of the chain is that the provider-independent name ends
up being connectivity-dependent by aligning the scale of abstraction
such that the connection falls within its boundary.

> 
> While I'm at it, I rather admire the skilful political spin 
> displayed in naming them "provider-dependent" and 
> "provider-independent" addresses, thereby completely 
> obscuring the underlying technical issues, and making it seem 
> like it's purely a policy issue, one in which the large 
> providers are out to screw the customers. Maybe y'all should 
> introduce terminology of "RIAA-addresses" and 
> "Microsoft-addresses", as alternatives for 
> "provider-dependent addresses", for extra PR bang.
> 
> If you want technically accurate terminology, as opposed to 
> politically accurate, call them "connectivity-dependent" and 
> "connectivity-independent".

There was no attempt to make this a political argument, in fact it is
more accurate than connectivity-*. The current policy says customers get
their prefix from their provider so that it aggregates, therefore it is
provider-dependent. End sites are looking for a mechanism that allows
them to decouple their prefix from any specific provider, therefore it
is provider-independent. You are correct that when the bits hit the
wire, connectivity is the thing that matters, but that is what the
prefix exchanges in BGP tape back together. If a connection falls
outside the scope of an available aggregate, it will flatten routing up
to the next available level of aggregation. There is no magic here, as I
am sure you are well aware.


Tony

> 
> 	Noel
>