Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Shane Kerr <shane@ripe.net>]

On 2002-10-26 00:18:33 -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> 
> 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.

Here's a question:  does the end-to-end principle imply the endpoint
is the application or the network stack on the hosts?

The reason I ask is that I think the mudem idea has merit, even if it
involves a NAT-like transformation from the application point of view.

While eventually building applications that use SCTP might solve the
multihoming needs of many end-users, building a layer that allows all
existing applications to work with a set of addresses can offer enough
benefit now so that the IPv6 folks should hold their noses and
consider the idea.

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC