Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:Currently we won't get to v6 because it is broken and does not provide the functionality needed.Think carefully before you write things that the IPv6-haters might misuse. The reason we have this WG is to work towards solutions for one thing that IPv6 with PA addresses doesn't fix in the IPv4 model. For whatever reason, we can't get past the problem statement stage, but it really isn't going to advance things to say that IPv6 is "broken" when the reality is much deeper than any of the specifics of IPv6.
I'll try an alternate phrasing, which is one I happen to believe: The routing architecture shared by IPv4 and IPv6 is broken at least with respect to mobility and to multi-homing. Mobility needs to be to be a first-order property of the routing architecture, not an awkward hack add-on with limited deployability. Multi-homing also needs to be supported as a first-order property of the routing architecture. This means that multi-homing needs to be supported in a manner that scales to global IP network sizes well beyond the size of today's deployed Internet. Multihoming a given site ought not need to be known or visible in the default-free-zone of an ISP that is not directly connected to that multi-homed site. Ran rja@extremenetworks.com