RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> ...
> Look, there are network designs which allow 
> connectivity-dependent addressing schemes which are *not* 
> provider-dependent.
> 
> E.g. if a (large enough) bunch of customers band together and 
> create an exchange, which buys service from multiple ISP's, 
> and which is given an address which is visible over the same 
> scope as those ISP's, and the customers are addressed as part 
> of that exchange, you meet the policy goal (being able to 
> change providers) *without* so-called "PI" addresses. But the 
> addresses are still connectivity-based.
>

So we are arguing the same point, so this is simple semantics. I was
simply using a global algorithmic mapping to allocate the prefix for the
exchange.
 
> So there's one really good reason to discard this bogus 
> "provider-dependent" and "provider-independent" terminology - 
> because there are cases in which it
> *doesn't* align with the underlying technical issue.
> 

Fine, we need to come up with a paragraph that clearly gets the point
across.

> 
> Perhaps if people understood the underlying technical issues 
> better this discussion would be more fruitful. Using 
> terminology which *accurately* conveys the underlying 
> fundamental technical limitations, rather than their policy 
> goals, is a good place to start.

Both apply, so we just need to be very clear.

Tony

> 
> 	Noel
>