Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Michel.

> > No.  The open concern then becomes that of applications
> > that carry addresses in the payload -- would border
> > routers require a knowledge base of applications to
> > translate a la IPv4 NAT?
> 
> Yuck. I am totally opposed to ALGs. Although higher layer apps that
> embed port numbers or other info in the payload are not elegant, they do
> exist. Any solution that requires an ALG is a non-starter.
> 
> IPv6 was designed with the implicit promise that we could restore
> end-to-end connectivity that was lost with NAT. NAT is not bad; it
> simply is a necessary evil. There are no regrets to have invented NAT,
> as it was necessary. However, it would be a terrible mistake to
> reproduce with IPv6.

NAT is unnecessary.

IPv6 people, trying to promoto IPv6 transition, loudly warned IPv4
space exhaustion, perhaps with overestimation.

The result was suppression of IPv4 address allocation, which
promoted people to use NAT.

As a result, IPv4 space won't exhaust very soon that no one really
needs the IPv6 transtion, yet.

Considering that IPv6 still have several flaws, including, but
not limited to that for multihoming, we are lucky thant NAT suppressed
IPv6 deployment.

The remaining problem is that some IPv6 people are opposing to fix
fatal flaws, as the fix will delay the magical IPv6 deployment to
occur within several months, for these seven years.

							Masataka Ohta