[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Tony Li wrote:
> Because we've done nothing to eliminate the "tragedy of the commons".
> Under this scheme, which alternative is easier for users? I would
> guess PI space. And everyone would choose that and then tell us that
> they are sufficiently "special" to get PI space and then we end up
> back where we are today.
> A workable architecture has to constrain the users into doing The
> Right Thing automatically. Because otherwise, users will optimize for
> their own benefit, at the cost of the network.
I agree that it's not something I would propose for all multi-homers. I
agree there would be some folks who would want PI space when perhaps
multi-PA is indeed workable for them. So it's all-or-nothing? I don't
The complexity and management of assigning multiple-PA prefixes to my home
network of 6 segments, or my mother's accounting firm with 20 segments, or
even a previous employer's network of 100 segments, is vastly different
than assigning multiple-PA prefixes to a network of tens of thousands of
segments worldwide, with multiple Internet igress/egress points.
I don't think it's just me who believes that IPv6 adoption isn't automatic
in large enterprises today, and is in fact hindered severely at this point
for lack of a multi-homing solution.
Craig A. Huegen, Chief Network Architect C i s c o S y s t e m s
IT Transport, Network Technology & Design || ||
Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive || ||
San Jose, CA 95134, (408) 526-8104 |||| ||||
email: email@example.com CCIE #2100 ..:||||||:..:||||||:..