Hello, I added multi6 on Cc: list for this particular piece of the thread.
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote: [...] > Some folks have argued that easy renumbering would eliminate the need > for enterprises to have provider-independent addressing, but I don't > agree. Addresses are stored in many places in the network besides > the interfaces of routers and hosts, such as access control lists, > configuration files, .hosts files, DNS configurations, ACL lists, etc. > In many cases, addresses are stored in nodes on other subnets. So, > being able to renumber the interfaces of hosts and routers on a > particular network or subnet doesn't even solve half of the problem. There are multiple reasons why people want PI addresses. Renumbering and multi-addressing has multiple different models. Some are easy and some are very difficult. We should develop at least the _easy_ solutions because they are probably useful too. For now, it's enough to manage the first 80% of the problem. Consider four reasons why people might want PI, routable addresses: - "I don't want to be in problems if my ISP goes bankrupt!" ==> multiple addresses are just fine here (deploy them before the ISP goes down, but use only one set of them etc.) - "I want to be able to change ISP's at will reasonably easily, to keep an edge" ==> multiple addresses are fine here too! - "I want to be able to protect against failures in my link(s) to my ISP and problems in our router(s)" ==> multiple addresses can deal with that too, with some added glue! - "I want to be able to protect against failures in my upstream ISP" ==> tough cookie, no solution here! Get the picture? Greedy folks want it all, but actually we _can_ provide quite a bit of it already! > Choices seem to be: > > (A) Continue with PA addressing, and accept that enterprises will > use IPv6 NAT to get provider-independence. > (B) Allocate PI addresses, and trust that we can determine a > scalable PI routing scheme before we hit route scaling > issues in the IPv6 backbone. I don't comment on these except that you seem to be making some conclusions I don't agree on. I don't think PA equals IPv6 NAT, not at all. There are solutions there. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
