Re: [shim6] IPv6 multihoming

["Ethern M., Lin" <[e-mail]>]

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
>