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

[John Payne]

On Mar 31, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:

> The alternatives are fine for "someone else", but ask anyone, and  
> they want their PI. Give them that, and the IPv6 route table very  
> quickly mirrors the IPv4 route table for complexity.
>
> And hence I raise my question. There are a number of alternatives on  
> the table today that give one both multihoming and ISP independence.  
> Who has given them five minutes though before rejecting them out of  
> hand?

What alternative gives you multi-homing and leaves the traffic  
engineering[*] in the hands of the network team and not the end-users  
or server folk?


[*]  even if that's "primary/backup" rather than anything more  
complex... but people will want to try to get to 60/40 or 50/50 for  
political or cost reasons