IPv6 PI allocation
pekkas at netcore.fi
Sat May 19 07:51:11 CEST 2007
On Fri, 18 May 2007, John Payne wrote:
> On May 18, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> This way, you can easily end up working on a mechanism for scalable
>> multihoming (shim6), and then have non-scalable multihoming (PI) introduced
>> just as the scalable mechanism is defined.
> I've been watching this thread with interest. Unfortunately it seems that
> you still don't get that shim6 is not THE scalable solution to multihoming.
> Its a solution to some (edge) cases of multihoming. PI multihoming gives
> operators everything they have in IPv4. shim6 gives 2 providers, and misses
> so many other things.
> Please stop calling it "the scalable mechanism to multihoming" unless you add
> "basement" as the penultimate word.
AFAICS, Iljitsch didn't call it '_the_ scalable multihoming
[mechanism]' but rather '_a_ scalable multihoming [mechanism]'
(emphasis mine). There's a big difference. There could be others.
I'm not sure if I'd necessarily count v4-style PI multihoming as one,
but opinions seem to differ on that.
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
More information about the ipv6-ops