IPV6 route registries

[Brian E Carpenter]

>> Now, for solving all kinds of other obstacles that come along with
>> multihoming there are also a variety of other solutions, all which get
>> discarded by people because what they know is this BGP-based
>> multihoming
>> and thus that is all they want...

Yes indeed, and of course this will work fine for a few tens of thousands
of multihomed sites. Where it will get us into very serious trouble is
if millions of smaller enterprises decide they want to pay extra for
multihoming. That's why people are still looking for alternatives.
IMNSHO this is *the* hardest problem in the Internet architecture.

> Or they have looked at so called other multihoming solutions found them incomplete or laughable. The ivory tower idea that a corporate entity would be able to globally renumber their prefixes every time some PHB switches providers is again laughable.

That is true today. However, note two points:

1. SOHO networks are a different matter and in effect get renumbered whenever
you restart the CPE box. There are features in IPv6 that make this easier,
because you can use the prefix from the ISP for external access and a ULA
prefix for internal devices that need static addresses. I think this will
become common practice once the next generation of CPEs appear (RFC 6204,
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis).

2. For serious enterprise networks, renumbering still needs work (see RFC 5887).
That work is starting, please join in: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6renum/charter/
The more operator input we have into that work, the better.

   Brian