Re: IPv6 Multi-homing BOF at NANOG 35

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > The point of shim6 is to *avoid* the need for PI-like space for 
> > multihomed sites, so that we don't do to the IPv6 BGP table what 
> > multihoming is doing to the IPv4 BGP table. We need IPv6 to scale 
> > vastly more than IPv4, so this is essential.
>
>
> The problem isn't PI addressing, it's advertising tiny prefixes in the 
> routing table. PI addressing *without* global-routing-table visibility 
> *would* obviously scale for routing. We just don't have a way to do this.
>
> > I hope the proposed BOF will make this clearer. I personally think 
> > that shim6 will be really cool for ISPs, although as Geoff says it 
> > will take a while to deploy and during that time we'll need a PI-like 
> > approach.
>
>
> We'll always need PI. The Independence part of PI is what people 
> /really/ want. They don't want multiple-PA (they can do that already 
> relatively easily). If people can not get globally-unique PI addresses 
> they will use private PI space and use address translation.

Paul, my belief system is different, which is why I've been vigorously
supporting ULAs, shim6 and the NAP draft. My belief is that if we
provide a solution set that that avoids the need for NAT with its myriad
disadvantages, enlightened self-interest will prevail.

   Brian