Well, that is from the point of scaling in number of routes. I am not sure the model as such will work.I have gone through the above draft again and started thinking. Although the draft as such does not give any solution in itself to mulithoming it is part of other solutions. I am not convinced it scales though.This is irrelevant to the draft, as the scalability comes from the aggregation model and not from the addressing allocation plan. Out of the two aggregation schemes that currently use GAPI (MHAP and isp-int-aggr"GFN"), we know that the aggregation provided by GFN does not scale that good, but MHAP does (MHAP is a dual-space system and the GAPI address is the identifier).
Mainly my concerns are that this is based on statistics. The draft says that the options that are available to base this on is geography or population.It's mostly population. The geography part (such as promoting Hawaii to the status of "country") is baseline or optimization only.
Yes, but there are other alternatives to base this on as well.
And this is the problem. The current model to me does not allocate addresses to where they are used.Certainly not, because this will get us into politics. Maybe China willI would add Geopolicy and economics.
be capitalist tomorrow, who knows. When I was a young man, the enemy was
the Soviet Union and people in Berlin were being shot trying to jump the
wall. Go to Berlin now, it's fortunate that the remains of the wall are
documented because otherwise you would not find them. Gee, maybe in 3
years the largest concentration of multihomed oil companies will be in
Iraq and the Russians will make their space shuttle fly after they are
done inspecting the heat shield. Who are we to predict the future?
Even Tonys allocation would then be better. My problem is not with the population numbers. My problem is that I am not convinced address useage follow population patterns.In Tony Hain's drafts, a square foot in Kabul gets the same number of IPv6 addresses than a square foot in Palo Alto; we do the same except that we do it for people. No politics. If you're not happy with the numbers, talk to the United Nations Statistics division.
True, but you are then more or less starting to punch holes in the aggregates.This is true, but we addressed it by having slack at three differentIf we take Sweden or Switzerland as examples, these are countries with relatively small populations but with a high number of large multinationals per capita. Multinationals will have a higher burn rate of addresses, especially in multihoming than "ordinary" users will. With the GAPI addresses, instead large countries that might have a lower order of multihoming is gaining advantage.
levels. In the absolute, it does not make a difference anyway, because
our base allocation gives an address for four people, and multinationals
are typically way larger than 4 people.