[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: yesterday

On dinsdag, jul 15, 2003, at 10:39 Europe/Amsterdam, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

Also, some mechanisms (such as SCTP) need API changes. I think this is
EXTREMELY dangerous as this is a huge stumbling block for IPv6
adoption. The latest OSes support IPv6 and getting a tunnel or 6to4 is
fairly trivial, but we the reason why there is very little IPv6
adoption is that the applications simply fail to use it when it's
available. This is something we absolutely can't have with
multihoming, in my not so humble opinion.



I think this brings up the issues from the IAB meeting yesterday, what
do we want to change when.




Ok, my position is: we don't want to change the API right here, right 
now. The cost/benefit ratio for doing this just for multihoming is out 
of whack. Don't forget that if the multihoming solution we come up with 
isn't attractive enough, people will simply push for PI in IPv6.




That we need to change large parts at some
point, I think is clear. Question is if this will really influence IPv6
adoption or not (if the change takes us 10+ years - after we have
consensus, is it really an issue). And what we do in the mean time. It
will be interesting to see what the IAB comes up with.





I personally think that Brians presentation from yesterdays IAB meeting
was very good and pointed to the problems. And the problems with the
solutions.




Yes, this was a quite disheartening list. Is it online somewhere, BTW?



I think what we need is a complete overhaul of the IP architecture. We 
are doing so many things that go completely against the original IP 
assumptions, that it is amazing IP keeps working to a useful level at 
all. And the socket API is high on the list of stuff that's ready for 
retirement. But this is much more fundamental than adding multihoming 
to IPv6, even though that problem is somewhat fundamental also.