Re: V6ops: IPv6 site multihoming best practices

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

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Dwight, here is a sequence of discussion from old multi6 list.
> > As you can see, it isn't clear that 3178 really meets all
> > needs.
>
>
> Brian, I think the two important needs we should see from that discussion:
>
>  1) "RFC 3178 might be too complex to set up or use" (operational 
> complexity of tunnels, tunnel overhead, etc.)
>
>  2) folks want independence, i.e., PI addresses
>
> Shim6 doesn't meet the need 2) either, while it may help a bit with 1).  
> I don't know if 1) would be too big of a hurdle if folks didn't need to 
> consider 2).

Independence of what? With agile multihoming, you don't need your
prefix to be independent of your ISP; the argument is circular.
If you want stable internal addressing, you can use an SLA prefix.

   Brian