IPv6 PI allocation

Pekka Savola 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 mailing list