Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> > I think it is important to understand what the deployed reality is
> > today.
> > That impacts how widely useful some solutions might be, particularly
> > in the case of so-called "geographic addressing".  I also think it
> > is important to understand when a given solution will not work with
> > some/all deployed networks.  Financial realities mean that an IETF
> > document standardising a solution that requires more interconnection
> > probably will not lead to firms changing their topologies anytime soon
> > to meet such a requirement.
> 
> Nobody is proposing a solution that needs more exchanges in order to be
> useful. 

You may not think so, but I find it hard to believe.

> Just to be safe I've included a statement to this effect in the
> abstract of draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr-00.txt. 

This statement will not impress business managers who see an
opportunity to create exchanges.

> New exchanges
> would only be necessary if this solution were to be used much longer
> than intended, 

I assume that whatever gets deployed will be around for 20 or 30 years
minimum.

> but as we approach one multihomer in 10 people even flat
> routing for a single city such as New York, Tokio or Mexico City will be
> problematic.

I wouldn't expect domestic users to be MH, so I don't expect to see
a million MH sites in those cities.
> 
> > > Granted the logical circuit topology is not limited
> > > to that, but again, how many real exceptions will exist, and how many
> > > of those will exist despite every attempt to prevent them?
> 
> > A fair number of exceptions exist today.
> 
> But then what's common today may be tomorrow's exception and the other
> way around. For instance, someone with ADSL doing BGP routing with IPv6
> and a "real" AS number is very rare today, while the number of
> organizations connecting to the internet in far apart locations is
> something that regularly happens (although I suspect the actual number
> isn't all that high). In the future, this will very likely be different.
> It could even be argued that existing cases are of no importance to
> routing scalability and it's enough to make new cases scalable.
> 
> Also note that as of today, NO end-user networks are multihomed in IPv6.

Just wait until we are running real production needing 99.9% up time.

  Brian