RE: [narten-r/[email protected]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

Agree.
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mohacsi Janos
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 2:52 PM
> To: James Jun
> Cc: 'Iljitsch van Beijnum'; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [narten-r/[email protected]: PI addressing in IPv6 
> advances in ARIN]
> 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, James Jun wrote:
> 
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:21 PM
> >> To: james-qgwYH1rQKO9Wk0Htik3J/[email protected]
> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [narten-r/[email protected]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in 
> >> ARIN]
> >>
> >> On 14-apr-2006, at 18:09, James Jun wrote:
> >>
> >>> How about you start operating a real network and feel the pain of 
> >>> your enterprise customers who require usability?
> >>
> >> How about you do a "show ip bgp" and experience some pain 
> of your own?
> >>
> >>> IPv6 is a failure
> >>
> >> IPv6 was created so we could continue to have an internet 
> when we're 
> >> out of IPv4 addresses. We're not out of IPv4 addresses yet. How can
> >> IPv6 be a failure at this point?
> >>
> >>> because of
> >>> ongoing FUD regarding so called 'routing table explosion' 
> that even
> >>> IPv4 is
> >>> still susceptible to,
> >>
> >> We've managed to make a fairly big mess of IPv4 in 25 
> years. Yes, it 
> >> still works but it's not pretty. IPv6 is supposed to last a lot 
> >> longer than 25 years, so explosions of any kind are to be 
> discouraged.
> >
> > Yes, discouraging customers from multihoming and delivering 
> > reliability--that appears to be the common message from a 
> good portion 
> > of IPv6-advocacy groups.  IPv6 is still IP, and not 
> anything different 
> > than
> > IPv4 other than a color: more address space.  If it is all 
> of a sudden 
> > going to require shim6 or similar, and discourage 
> multihoming like the 
> > way it happens today in IPv4, it certainly does not help.
> 
> There is some solution to provide some form multihoming for IPv6:
> 3178 IPv6 Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers. J. Hagino, H.
>         Snyder. October 2001. (Format: TXT=24453 bytes) (Status:
>         INFORMATIONAL
> 
> This solution is not very pretty, but you can keep the aggregation at
> Tier-1 and probably at Tier-2 porviders.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Janos Mohacsi
> Network Engineer, Research Associate
> NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
> Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE  21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98
> 
> 
> 
>