[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> Look, there are network designs which allow
> connectivity-dependent addressing schemes which are *not*
> E.g. if a (large enough) bunch of customers band together and
> create an exchange, which buys service from multiple ISP's,
> and which is given an address which is visible over the same
> scope as those ISP's, and the customers are addressed as part
> of that exchange, you meet the policy goal (being able to
> change providers) *without* so-called "PI" addresses. But the
> addresses are still connectivity-based.
So we are arguing the same point, so this is simple semantics. I was
simply using a global algorithmic mapping to allocate the prefix for the
> So there's one really good reason to discard this bogus
> "provider-dependent" and "provider-independent" terminology -
> because there are cases in which it
> *doesn't* align with the underlying technical issue.
Fine, we need to come up with a paragraph that clearly gets the point
> Perhaps if people understood the underlying technical issues
> better this discussion would be more fruitful. Using
> terminology which *accurately* conveys the underlying
> fundamental technical limitations, rather than their policy
> goals, is a good place to start.
Both apply, so we just need to be very clear.