Sean Doran wrote:
Hakikur Rahman <hakik(_at_)sdnbd(_dot_)org> writes:
I agree with Brian Carpenter,
"We expect millions of those during v6/v4 coexistence."
So back to my original question, which apparently none of
the IPv6-Leaders liked:
-- if we are doing tunnels which follow a logical
topology rather than a physical one,
-- why don't we have support for multihoming to
different logical topologies
We should. But multihoming is still a hard problem and we are
still working on it in IPNGWG.
-- with policy routing done on the host-side with
respect to selecting which of various address
combinations to use/allow for traffic exchanges
This is part of the hard part, too complex for a short email.
(I'm not trying to brush it off - it needs to get done.)
-- thus allowing generalized topologically-addressed VPNs
(with the topologies being virtual, constructed with tunnels)
-- thus allowing a partitioning of the IPv6 address
space in a way that is simultaneously both
topologically aggregatable _and_ policy-based
That would be good.
The missing piece is the control over who gets to
terminate a tunnel into a particular address space.
Isn't that a business issue?