[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Architectural limitations of our routing architecture
On Monday, Feb 10, 2003, at 09:58 America/Montreal, Brian E Carpenter
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Currently we won't get to v6 because it is broken and does not provide
the functionality needed.
Think carefully before you write things that the IPv6-haters might
The reason we have this WG is to work towards solutions for one
thing that IPv6 with PA addresses doesn't fix in the IPv4 model.
For whatever reason, we can't get past the problem statement stage,
but it really isn't going to advance things to say that IPv6
is "broken" when the reality is much deeper than any of the
specifics of IPv6.
I'll try an alternate phrasing, which is one I happen to believe:
The routing architecture shared by IPv4 and IPv6 is broken at least
with respect to mobility and to multi-homing. Mobility needs to be
to be a first-order property of the routing architecture, not an
awkward hack add-on with limited deployability. Multi-homing also
needs to be supported as a first-order property of the routing
architecture. This means that multi-homing needs to be supported
in a manner that scales to global IP network sizes well beyond the
size of today's deployed Internet. Multihoming a given site ought not
need to be known or visible in the default-free-zone of an ISP that is
not directly connected to that multi-homed site.