Re: IPv6 Multi-homing BOF at NANOG 35

["Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)" <jason.schiller@mci.com>]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, John Payne wrote:

> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 14:10:27 -0400
> From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
> Cc: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>, iab@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, shim6@psg.com
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Multi-homing BOF at NANOG 35
> 
> 
> On Sep 25, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> > NANOG = network operators in the sense of ISPs and the like. The 
> > solution that the shim6 is working on does NOT apply to this 
> > demographic.
> 
> Whoa there.  The NANOG community (as well as other ISP communities) is 
> hugely affected by shim6.
> 
> They are the ones who will be fielding customer calls about multihoming 
> - "why can't I just setup BGP like I always have done?".  Not everyone 
> at NANOG is going to be big enough to get a /32, but most of the ISPs 
> there are at least multihomed today.

> > I urge the discussion leaders to make it painfully clear to which
> > types of users the shim6 solution space applies and to which type of
> > users it doesn't.

Doesn't this apply to any orgization that doesn't have its own /32?

Doesn't this apply to any orgization that has customers that require
multihoming but lack their own /32 as John points out? 

Doesn't this apply to any orgization that has it's own IPv6 aggregate,
and wants to advertise something more specific than its aggregate?

If that is the case, then it won't just apply to ISPs or multi-homed end
sites who can't get a /32, it also applies to ISPs and end sites who have
a /32, but need to split route announcement to share load across multiple
transit providers.

___Jason