RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

Greg,

> Greg Maxwell wrote:
> Contentential boundries are the only ones that make sence..
> Any tighter and there is too much movement and interconnection.
> Contentential bounderies also make sence because they could be
> aligned with the addressing authorties.

You are not the first one to make this argument.

> But.. They don't buy us much.. At best they would reduce
> the routing table by a factor of 4 or so, probably less..

Something of that order. That being said, a factor 4 is 4 years of extra
time developing a better solution. If the better solution does use the
same addressing scheme, it does make sense.

> I believe that any tunnling purposal would be an incomplete
> solution and something of a hack. I really don't think that
> anyone is arguing that such a solution is realistic due to
> it's inelegance. (anyone feel free to correct me)

$100 cash to find a flaw in this one:
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/draft-py-mhap-01a.txt
(please read the open issues too)

Michel.