However, I don't think that we can responsibly do that and claim that the
route scaling issue is SEP. Is there any reason to believe that we _can_
actually find a scalable way to route to "portable" PI addresses?
When we hit 1k non-6bone routes find me at the following IETF meeting and I will buy you dinner. We can then talk about what to do.
This I agree. What seriously worries me is that we are trying to use large amount of super-glue to get around what is really a routing issue, and also a issue to which we have very little data to back up the claims.
It seems like we may need some consultation/cooperation between the multi6
group and the IPv6 group, to see if we can come up with a full solution to
provide scalable, routable PI addresses.
Do for example know for certain that there are that many sites that wishes to multihome? Do we know if they are fortune 100s or home DSL subscribers? Who of these are willing to renumber when changing service provider? I say that we still are in the infancy of IPv6 and trying to second guess what the network will look like when it is of the same size as the IPv4 network. If I am to be completely honest - I would like to see somewhat more than ~250 assingments worldwide before I start making any conclusions, even on IPv6 happening at all.
That said, *something* will have to replace IPv4. I am just worried we have not seen this starting to happen yet. there is simply nothing that is that appealing about IPv6 yet.
- kurtis -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
