RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

["Michael H. Lambert" <lambert@psc.edu>]

--On Thursday, 24 October 2002 08:03 -0700 Michel Py 
<michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:

[...]

> Absolutely. It is clear that there is a place for both, and this WG has
> been denying host-based solution in the misguided hunt for The Universal
> Multihoming Solution. A PI solution is not the answer to everybody nor
> is a host solution. My message to Peter Tattam and other people that
> have designed host solutions is this: There is a place for what you are
> doing, but also understand that it's not what everyone needs, and accept
> the fact that your solution will have to coexist with something else.
[...]

Is this a fair assessment?  There are three classes of multihomed leaf 
sites:

1) Entities, generally smaller ones, which can exist quite happily with 
multiple PA addresses (implying some degree of interchangeability among 
their providers),

2) Enterprises which require PI addresses either because they extend across 
multiple geographic areas (such as large corporations) or they connect to 
networks which are not interchangeable (such as universities with commodity 
and R&E connections) and

3) Regions which have the local topology to take advantage of 
geographically-based PI addresses.

It seems as though most discussion has tried to shoehorn both 2) and 3) 
into the same category.  I'm wondering if overall aggregation might be 
improved by giving these two classes separate PI space.

Michael

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael H. Lambert, Network Engineer           Phone: +1 412 268-4960 |
| Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center               FAX:   +1 412 268-8200 |
| 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA  15213       lambert@psc.edu        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+