RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

>So you're saying that you're waiting for the market to deliver 
>a routing architecture?  Or that the RIRs are going to?

RIRs will just give out addresses that is all.  THe market will deliver
a routing architecture via new industry consortia or we will figure it
out here.


>|    Does this effort want to fix the multihome 
>|    problem or the
>|    routing architecture to be something other than what we have?  Two
>|    different goals.
>
>The goal is to fix the multihoming problem, but to do it will 
>take a routing architecture that is different than what we have.

Might be good to define routing architecture? If we begin by reducing
traffic that causes problems for routing at the ISP in the end systems I
believe that is a start.  If new routing architecture means change to
IPv6 then I say engineers go in a room and make work what you have.
Extensions to IPv6 are acceptable I think.

>Well, that's kinda hard, because IPv6 as defined simply 
>ingrains the problem.

That's where we  will never agree and I don't use the word never to
often.  One possible solution to this statemate is for someone to define
what exactly routing architecture would look like as a model.  Then if
we all agreed on that model each could apply that model to their
favorite solution.  I for one would look at extensions to IPv6 that are
quite possible and there are many places to define extensions (e.g. DST
Options, Hop-by-Hop, Next Headers new formats).

/jim