RE: PI/metro/geo [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development]

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

Randy Bush wrote:
> </ad hat>
> >> We need to decide which is more important: the scalability and 
> >> durability of the routing subsystem or the convenience of 
> >> non-connection based addressing.  When we have consensus on this 
> >> point, then all else will follow.
> > The answer to the question depends on which side of the 
> table you are 
> > sitting on.
> 
> there is little doubt in my mind which side i sit on.  
> interesting that tli seems to be on the same side.  but then 
> he always kinda groked the operational issues.

Operational issues in the ISP space have always favored restricting
topology or the knowledge about unaggregated parts thereof. At the same
time, operational issues in the edge enterprise space favor provider
independence for maximum flexibility. We have representative voices for
the ISP issues, where are the comparable voices for the enterprise
issues? The ISP focus carried round 1, so the allocation policy only
allows for strict aggregation via provider blocks. The enterprise demand
for multi-homing is the fundamental issue this WG is supposed to
address, but the primary voices are those insisting on maximal
aggregation for the ISP routing system. It is hard to believe this will
end up with a well balanced result that considers all the requirements. 

Speaking of, we have a requirements doc that needs to get published. 

Tony