Re: getting IPv6 space without ARIN (Re: PAT )

[Sean Doran]

Hakikur Rahman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I agree with Brian Carpenter,
> "We expect millions of those during v6/v4 coexistence."
> Hakik.

So back to my original question, which apparently none of
the IPv6-Leaders liked:

  -- if we are doing tunnels which follow a logical
     topology rather than a physical one,
  -- why don't we have support for multihoming to
     different logical topologies
  -- with policy routing done on the host-side with
     respect to selecting which of various address
     combinations to use/allow for traffic exchanges
  -- thus allowing generalized topologically-addressed VPNs
     (with the topologies being virtual, constructed with tunnels)
  -- thus allowing a partitioning of the IPv6 address
     space in a way that is simultaneously both
     topologically aggregatable _and_ policy-based

The missing piece is the control over who gets to
terminate a tunnel into a particular address space.

        Sean.