Subject: bar-bof Multihoming with multiple prefixes without NAT66

From: Arifumi Matsumoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:52:31 +0900

All,

the place and time is fixed for the bar-bof.
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BarBofsIETF78

We welcome everyone to drop by.

20:00-21:30
  Multihoming with multiple prefixes without NAT66 : Implementation of 
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66. Live demonstration with running codes 
  related drafts: 
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66 
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-opt 
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option 
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-savolainen-mif-dns-server-selection  
  location: 0.8 Rome 
  Contact:  Jun-ya Kato

---

From: Arifumi Matsumoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:22:55 +0900

All,

at yesterday's bof, we had a lot of participants and good
discussion. I'd like to say thank you here again.

At the following site, you can find the presentation slides
of yesterday the internet-drafts, and some related documents from BBF.
Though the source code is not made public yet, we are thinking and
trying to do so. If you have interests in it, please let us know.
It helps a lot for publication.

http://wiki.github.com/otroan/IETF-Non-Congruent-Multi-homing/

At the yesterday's discussion, I believe we've reached better
understanding of the problems and some of the possible solutions.

On 2010/07/28, at 17:52, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:16:33 +1200

Hi,

Sorry I was not in Maastricht and able to attend.

Technically, it's very interesting, and is (as far as I am
concerned) the original plan for IPv6 multihoming, as we expected
ten years ago.

But there's a problem. As far as I can tell from formal and
informal contacts with IT management in typical companies
and campuses, the idea of operating multiple prefixes in parallel,
although fundamental in IPv6 design, is highly unwelcome to such
managers. RFC 4192 is almost unknown, typical address management
software packages struggle to deal with even one IPv6 prefix,
and the aversion to renumbering when changing ISPs is enormous.
In fact there's an RFC about that too: RFC 5887. We know that
these site IT managers, and their ISPs, and therefore the RIRs,
are going for PI prefixes as a result of this situation.

What I don't see is how we can make the multi-prefix approach
the preferred approach in the industry. Showing that it works
is not going to be enough. It has to be *easy*.

    Brian

On 2010-07-30 04:22, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>