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

From: Jessica Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:47:08 -0400

I have spent a lot of time on this thread of discussion (and my boss may 
start to wonder if I have anything better to do :).  But before go to do some 
real work :), let me summarise (from my understanding) of general high 
level directions agreed upon in the discussion: 

o Although aggregation (i.e. no route longer than /64 be advertised to 
  global routing table) is not mandatory for IPv6, it's a very desirable
  goal to reach. 

o There may be nothing to prevent the current IPv4 multihoming practice to 
  be used in IPv6 environment (till it's become unmanageable). However, 
  it's highly desirable to develop multihoming mechanism to reach the 
  goal described above so such proposals have to work under the constrains 
  of aggregation. 

o It is not necessary for the WG to come up with only ONE such 
  mechanism. In fact, it's more realistic to have multimple mechanisms
  to meet the different requirements of users and ISPs.

o Besides meeting requirements for multihoming, such as redundancy, load
  sharing ,etc., the manageability of a solution should not be overlooked.

o The market will ultimately decide what solution(s) will be used. So
  the WG's job is not to decide a (or D) solution for the ISPs and 
  multihoming customers but rather provide a set of possible solutions 
  with pros and cons well documented.

						--Jessica
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:05:35 -0400

this sounds excellent and captures the points well.

/jim

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:03:58 -0500

> ... let me summarise (from my understanding) of general high 

The original (for some choice of origin) scheme was not to require
any prefix longer than * /16 * to be carried globally.  The TLA size
has been fudged a bit since then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------