Biggest mistake for IPv6: It's not backwards compatible, developers admit

[Mohacsi Janos]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 16:14, Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi at niif.hu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
>
>>
>>> - allow multihoming the way v4 PI does for small players
>>
>> What do you mean by this? Have more than one upstream provider for
>> resiliency?
>
>
> think about the small-ish operator that has a couple of transits (for
> costs and resiliency reasons) and peers at the local exchange with
> other networks. This is a quite common scenario, and they won't give
> away the ability to do that quite easily, unless the market changes in
> a way that I honestly can't imagine.
>
>
>>
>>> - allow 'political' traffic engineering, in addition to whatever
>>> technical reason you may have already
>>
>>
>> Are you willing to pay for poluting DFZ routing table?
>>
>
> Are you willing to explain to your colleague in finances why you let
> your traffic with $big_provider_A go over commit at premium price,
> while traffic with $big_provider_B was under commit? Please note that
> the colleague in finances is the same that will deny you the upgrades
> of your router memories at budget time.

okay it seems to me, that shim6 is a good candidate for your problem with 
some extension allowing specifing amount of outgoing traffic going on 
paralel links.

Best Regards,
 		Janos Mohacsi