Subject: Re: Why?

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:09:54 -0500 (EST)

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

    > In the near term, we should recommend more liberal address
    > assignment policies so that multiple prefixes and renumbering are
    > not needed

The problem with this is that multiple addresses were adopted as the way
to do large-scale multi-homing (i.e. having a lot of multi-homed sites)
because it was the only approach that seemed technically feasible within
the existing architecture (both routing, and the various namespaces).

It may well be true that in practise, having several addresses (in the
sense of "names that identify both location and identity") is unworkable.
If so, that inevitably means that scalable multi-homing is not practical
with IPv6 - and it also inevitably means that the multi6 effort ought to
be abandoned.

"We are a lighthouse. Your call."

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:12:47 -0500

>> In the near term, we should recommend more liberal address assignment 
>> policies so that multiple prefixes and renumbering are not needed
>
> The problem with this is that multiple addresses were adopted as the 
> way to do large-scale multi-homing (i.e. having a lot of multi-homed 
> sites) because it was the only approach that seemed technically 
> feasible within the existing architecture (both routing, and the 
> various namespaces).

if it seemed technically feasible, perhaps it was because a problem one 
hasn't tried to solve yet (and which is "somebody else's problem") 
seems more feasible than a problem one is familiar with.

> sense of "names that identify both location and identity") is 
> unworkable. If so, that inevitably means that scalable multi-homing is 
> not practical with IPv6 - and it also inevitably means that the multi6 
> effort ought to be abandoned.

we haven't determined that the situation is unworkable, but neither 
have we found a way to make it workable.  also, there is room for 
compromise.  It appears to me that renumbering and multihoming can be 
made manageable with some additional protocol support (HIP being 
potentially one of the pieces, but only one of them) _and_ with some 
constraints on the use of multiple address prefixes.   (at present 
there are many more pressures for hosts to have multiple addresses than 
just v6 renumbering and multihoming)