Re: [shim6] IPv6 multihoming

[Vlad Ion <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ethern,

The idea of having people who own v4 space to announce it in v6 form and
perform the local translation between those 2 was to encourage and provide
an additional incentive to whoever deploys a v6 island because they'll have
direct access to the full internet in v6 form without needing to deploy
something like 6to4 to access the v6 internet and a nat-pt to access the v4
internet.

BR,
Vlad

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ethern M., Lin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Vlad,
>
> This issue is assuming that everyone can get the public IPv4 IP,
> right? But how can you guarantee that everyone can get the public IPv4
> IP without any problem? If not, I don't think your idea work although
> I am admire your spirit to push IPv6 and solve the multi-homing issue
> in IPv6.
>
> cheers,
> Ethern
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Vlad Ion <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > For a year now whenever it comes to IPv6 telco implementations I keep
> facing
> > 2 problems so I was hoping you can guide me towards find a group that
> deals
> > with these issues or discussion solutions. The 2 problems are related to
> > IPv6 multi-homing and access to the internet in IPv6 format for a quick
> > transitions from v4 to v6. Also I need some guidance as to what needs to
> be
> > done for a draft document proposal to be created about the proposed
> > solutions mentioned bellow and who needs to be involved in this process.
> >
> > As far as multi-homing goes in IPv6 the solution discussion generated by
> > using provider-independent address space like mentioned in
> > draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-10 seems too complicated to implement efficiently
> > and generates a lot of unnecessary work. Because IPv6 will never really
> be
> > adopted by ISPs, telco and enterprises until it offers a feasible
> > multi-homing solution my proposal is that some solutions are redefined
> such
> > as provider independent address space and the 6to4 standard.
> >
> > I propose that the 6to4 ip conversion space from ipv4 addresses to
> > 2002::ipv6 space will be redefined as provider independent address space.
> > This way whoever wants to implement ipv6 with multi-homing can simply
> > redefine their existing IPv4 addresses in IPv6 6to4 format and have
> > multi-homing in ipv6. Everyone already uses ipv4 multi-homing with
> success
> > so I see no point in defining a new addressing system for v6 when
> everyone
> > can simply use the same v4 address space for multi-homing but converted
> in
> > 6to4 format.
> >
> > Also, another issue faced by whoever uses IPv6 is that access to the
> > internet in v6 format is limited so a proposal has to be made to the RIRs
> to
> > offer incentives such as free IPv6 space for anyone who implements 6to4
> > relay routers and advertises their existing v4 space in v6 format along
> with
> > the newly received free v6 space.
> >
> > I believe that as long as ietf gets involved and a rfc is written on
> these 2
> > proposals starting with the redefining of  the provider independent
> address
> > space and its inclusion in the 6to4 format things will be a lot more
> compact
> > and give some additional momentum to the IPv6 migration process.
> >
> > Best regards and I hope to hear from you soon,
> > Vlad Ion
> >
> > Siemens PSE
> > IP backbone design engineer
> >
>