Re: V6ops: IPv6 site multihoming best practices

[bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:02:31PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

	perhaps, just perhaps, independence is only one aspect
	ofthe concern.  there is also the desire to have a persistant
	and consistant identifier for SNMP, AAA, RADIUS, SYSLOG, etc.
	and nearly all the renumbering or "agile multihoming"  proposals
	to date do NOT meet the requirements to use these types of 
	tools.

	the more metaphysical discussion about creating a subordinate
	reduced functionality class, walled gardens, and captive rate payers, 
	as fundamental attributes of the Internet of the 21st century as distinctly 
	different than the "level playing field" of the Internet of the
	20th century will be left to other threads.

--bill

> 
>    Brian
>