RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

|    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.


A new industry consortia is now in charge of IPv6?  Please, point
us at it.  Figuring it out here is 'challenging'.


|    >|    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?


10 years and we still don't understand the problem that we're trying
to solve?  Sigh.  

Routing is the other half of ROAD.  The part that we didn't ever
finish.

Ok, just for posterity: routing architecture tells you how
packets get from point A to point B in the network.  It includes
the semantics of the address, the routing protocols, and the forwarding
paradigm.


|    If we begin 
|    by reducing
|    traffic that causes problems for routing at the ISP in the 
|    end systems I
|    believe that is a start.


Ok, let's turn off v6.  Solved.


|    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.


Extensions imply that the architecture could not support that case
properly
as a first class citizen and that you're crocking and kludging to make
it work.  Seems like a pretty poor basis for a "new" protocol when
you're
trying to get it deployed and you admit up front that it doesn't cut it.

    
|    >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, if you're going to be so closed minded as to say that we will never
agree, then I don't see how you can reasonably expect anyone to change
the architecture.  Multihoming can never be a first class citizen in
the architecture if you do not divorce the 'locator' from the
'identifier'.
And that's what IPv6 insists on today.  If we continue down that path,
then the only alternatives are:

1) Forbid multihoming.  Not gonna happen.

2) All multihomed sites get global addresses and the routing subsystem
implodes.  This is the only way to get a single 'identifier' and then
use it for 'location' across all of my exit paths.  I must advertise
the route throughout the topology.

Which of these do you choose?  My vote:

3) Change the semantics of a v6 address.

Tony