Subject: RE: a response to "A Simple Solution for IPv6 Multihoming"

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:33:52 -0700

> Me:   "I don't know what the current growth rate is, or how 
> much latent
>       demand has been suppressed by the current difficulties 
> in getting
>       a new prefix advertised globally.  Do you have any data 
> on that?"

I don't know either, but I suspect that the latent demand may be
significant.

So another way of looking at this is, if we provide reasonable support for
multihoming in IPv6 without the need for a globally visible prefix (hard to
get in v4), this could give people a reason to use IPv6.

Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ben Black <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:47:39 -0700

> I don't know either, but I suspect that the latent demand may be

Based on what?

> get in v4), this could give people a reason to use IPv6.

Heh, I think it is pretty clear at this point it isn't easier in IPv6.

-- 
 --b

---

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 13:47:11 +1000 (EST)

> get in v4), this could give people a reason to use IPv6.

Would a quick measure be the number of A-S numbers?  Or are people using
private A-S space, or non BGP solutions to multi-homing.

I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to provide statistics on the
size of the DFZ BGP tables as viewed by them.  For us I am told that the
Aus-only BGP table will fit in < 32Meg, for a full worldwide table, it is more,
but not significantly so, but certainly not as large as it would be without
CIDR.

One thing I can't answer is if CIDR is working fully.  I.e. are there sites
that think they are multihomed but indeed are not because their routes are not
really being fully advertised in the DFZ due to aggregation.  I could envisage
this happening.  If it were, it would be a rude awakening for us all.

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            [email-masked]
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210

---

From: Magnus Ahltorp <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Sep 1999 04:45:51 +0200

> > I don't know either, but I suspect that the latent demand may be

If multihoming would be as cheap as buying IP connectivity from two
providers, and not having them care about you meing multihomed, I know
many sites in Sweden that would be multihomed. As far as I know, there
is only one site (not counting major operators) that is multihomed in
Sweden. Not even normal ISP:s are multihomed. Please give me
counterexamples.

I don't think Sweden is the only country with this problem.

> Heh, I think it is pretty clear at this point it isn't easier in IPv6.

"Isn't easier" = "is harder or equal".

It cannot be harder, since the same addressing policies can be applied
to IPv6. I don't really think it's equal, since it is easier to get
several addresses for one host, not because it's mandatory to allow
that, but since the address space is larger.

Magnus Ahltorp
Department of Teleinformatics
Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden