Sean Doran wrote:
>
> 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
We should. But multihoming is still a hard problem and we are
still working on it in IPNGWG.
> -- with policy routing done on the host-side with
> respect to selecting which of various address
> combinations to use/allow for traffic exchanges
This is part of the hard part, too complex for a short email.
(I'm not trying to brush it off - it needs to get done.)
> -- 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
That would be good.
>
> The missing piece is the control over who gets to
> terminate a tunnel into a particular address space.
Isn't that a business issue?
Brian
