Michel Py wrote:
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.
Then shift it back to the ISP's [1]:
- Encourage RIR's to allocate /32's to large multihomed end sites
(connected to 3 or more upstreams)
- Use something like alternate path encoded addresses/routing for
trivial multihoming (2 upstreams)
Allocating anything longer than /32 is asking for a massive swamp.
It's bad enough that ARIN is issuing /48 microallocations as many
operators are only filtering routes longer than /48 right now.
Alternate path routing allows you to set the bar a bit higher for
getting PI space and allows anyone with two connections to multihome
(including people who couldn't multihome in IPv4).
Kevin Loch
[1]http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-loch-multi6-alternate-path-encoding-03.txt
"While many IPv6 multihoming methods require changes to host
software, this method only requires changes to routers. This will
make widespread implementation far more practical and likely in the
near term than methods that require upgrading host software (provided
that router vendors support this feature)."
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf