Noel Chiappa wrote:
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).
Indeed.
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.
I came to the same conclusion myself a while ago.
We all came up with IPv6 scalable multi-homing solutions that were more
or less complex and more or less workable. Some of us acknowledged that
there was no single solution, and all of us acknowledged early in the
game that the solution we proposed would not be as simple as IPv4
multi-homing.
I realize now that this is where we erred: by shifting the multi-homing
problem from the ISP to the end-user, we made a less-palatable protocol
that is adoption-challenged.
We forgot to KISS. Mea culpa.
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf