Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

[Gert Doering <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:15:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It's more than that. It also creates an unpleasant kind of fate
> sharing between end-site and ISP as well as some vendor-lockin
> problems. Bottom line, for many end-sites, PA is an acceptable
> tradeoff, but it is desirable to none. PI is universally better for
> the end-site

I challenge that.  For a end site with no technical understanding (like,
*most* of them), PI is not useful.  Not at all.

PA with automatic network (re-)numbering and multihoming with multiple
PA networks already works today, and will really work much more pleasantly
than PI *for those networks* as soon as we've sorted out some of the 
remaining kinks (like source-address selection with SA failover).

Maybe you should step down from your "I have PI, I like it, everybody must
have PI" soapbox and actually look at what, for example, homenet has 
achieved in the last years.  This stuff looks complicated (and under the
hood, it is), but the end user experience "take this box, plug in a number
of ISPs, things work, no further configuration is needed(*)" is nothing you
can match with a PI network.

(*) for the case "there's a cable hanging from the wall with DHCPv6-PD 
and RA in it".  For cases where you need to configure access credentials,
homenet cannot automate this, of course.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279