IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [shim6] IPv6 multihoming

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 25 January 2010 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shim6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941193A699A for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:06:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kZsT-WsxbzaF for <shim6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A211A3A67EC for <shim6@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 6ADEF9C; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:06:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685469A; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:06:42 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:06:42 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Vlad Ion <vlad.thoth@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a5456ccb1001250337u39a9cef3kbc40bdfd987d572d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1001251305060.15329@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <a5456ccb1001250055y26928d3ar954c1799716cd3a9@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001251133160.97205@mignon.ki.iif.hu> <a5456ccb1001250337u39a9cef3kbc40bdfd987d572d@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, shim6@ietf.org, Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
Subject: Re: [shim6] IPv6 multihoming
X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List <shim6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/shim6>
List-Post: <mailto:shim6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6>, <mailto:shim6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:06:39 -0000

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Vlad Ion wrote:

> 3. Just allow everybody to use their IPv4 address as PI IPv6 address. I 
> see no problem with that. It even makes it a lot easier for everyone to 
> transition their existing space to IPv6.

We do *not* want 300k (or more) routes in IPv6 DFZ. This is a really bad 
idea.

> 4. Everybody should accept /48 in IPv6 routing just because there's a clear
> need to have multi-homing and you can't get around it. A simple procedure to
> reduce, in time, the size of the /48 classes that are announced is for
> people to slowly give back their v4 space to the RIRs as v6 expansion gains
> momentum and slowly dedicate v4 and their 2002:: counterparts to
> multi-homing only.

This will drive DFZ route growth even more.

> I agree, 6to4 is a good solution, but the problem remains with the slow 
> deployment rate of IPv6. The problems IPv6 has with multihoming were the 
> key factor in all the deployment projects I saw that gave up eventually 
> on IPv6 be it in telco or enterprise scenarios.

6RD is a better solution and doesn't drive IPv6 DFZ route growth.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email