On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: >> http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html > > Grossly oversimplifying, strategy B is unworkable for IPv4 > and very close to the plan of record for IPv6.
Hi Brian, I hate to be a pest, but does this mean you favor eliminating strategy B from consideration? Or oppose? I respect that your views on the subject are complex and that you would choose to ask and answer a more subtle question. But I didn't ask a subtle question. > The other point about this approach to strategy B is that it doesn't > break strategy A, if a little care is taken. There are also forms of strategy A that can evolve into strategy B over the long term. Architect your ITR so that the pushed data load doesn't render it unreasonable to place the ITR on the end-user's PC and then build the ETR dumb. With the session knowledge not available to the network ITR, the host ITR can make a better decision. Over time it becomes a standard part of the stack. > But people don't seem to have really absorbed that IPv6 stacks, > and applications updated to use them, already work with multiprefix > PA address assignments. Name three such applications. No points for layer-7 multihoming or applications which are obscure even within the IPv6 community. I'm not the IPv6 expert that you are Brian, but your statement does not reflect operations-level reality. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
