At 4:32 PM +0200 4/24/00, Sean Doran wrote:
>Unfortunately, IPv6's current addressing architecture makes it very
>difficult to do this sort of traditional multihoming if one is not
>a TLA. This is a significant step backward from the current IPv4
>situation, where one can persuade various operators to accept
>more-specific prefixes (coloured with appropriate community
>attributes) in order to optimize return traffic from particular
>parts of the Internet.
Sean,
That is widely claimed but incorrect. Nothing in the IPv6 addressing
architecture prevents a user from negotiating with multiple operators
to accept any prefix assigned to that user. IPv6 retains the same
capability as IPv4 in that respect.
>Therefore, in order to support IPv6 house-network multihoming, so
>as to preserve at least these three features of traditional
>multihoming, either the current IPv6 addressing architecture's
>restrictions on who can be a TLA must be abandoned (so each house
>becomes a TLA),...
The consequences of those restrictions are not what you imagined, but
even so, making each house a TLA does not strike me as a scalable
multihoming solution for very large numbers of houses, given the current
state of the routing art.
>...or NATs must be used to rewrite house-network addresses into various
>PA address ranges supplied by the multiple providers.
That's not the only possible alternative, and it is an alternative that
creates a bunch of other unsolved problems (see earlier messages in this
thread).
>IPv6's larger address space is merely a necessary piece of an
>Internet which will not run out of numbers.
Wow, we actually agree on something! (Though I could quibble over the
"merely".)
Steve
