If what you are saying is that a single unaggregated prefix per site was a better choice to find the best paths, I think that is to greatly oversimplify the problem. If what you are saying is that the current model is a problem in the sense that it creates problems in terms of routingtable growth as soon as we announce more specifics you are right. That is why we have this WG. A different problem is that it's only chartered to deal with this problem in IPv6...I'm not saying pre-CIDR was the garden of eden, but today's aggreagationUhm, I would argue that pre-CIDR the network didn't know the shortest-path, not the other way around?
hides information that could have been used for more optimal routing. I
Sorry, this analogy doesn't fly. Creating a architecture that will help us prevent DDOS or DOS is good, but will not only involve the multihoming model. It will require much more than that.the network is open to constant disruption (DDoS et al.). But IPv6 is still just IPv4 with bigger addresses.Agree. However, addressspace and preventing DDOS are two completely
different issues. We actually already today have both the tools and the
knowledge to prevent many of the DDOS attacks, still people are not
doing it. This has nothing to do with the architecture.
You can hang a motor on a sailboat, but that only makes it a sailboat with a motor, not a motorboat. If you have a sailboat and you need a motor, this makes sense. When designing a new boat, not so much.
Agree on the non-specific, disagree on the "change". We've done too much
changing already. I think we should forget the current protocols for a
while, and design a new architecture that can do what people are
I think was (actually currently is) discussed at the plenary. - kurtis -