-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-06-22, at 11.17, Joao Damas wrote:
I can't see the connection. The whole point of the multi6 group is to find multihoming solutions that do *not* need a global routing table slot.
What the solution is does not matter as long as it is workable.
The point I raised has nothing to do with how multi6 intends to achieve it's goals, rather with the fact that the current attitude towards policy making for IPv6 seems to have the underlying assumption that there is a need to drastically reduce the number of organisations that can get allocations to reduce the number of entries in the routing table. This happens at the same time that there is a group working on solutions so it shows little faith in the outcome of the work.
Well, there is also a time scale factor. If multi6 concluded today, someone still needs to do the protocol work, which is at least two years. Add to that implementation. 10 years might be optimistic. Then again we haven't gotten 500 routes in the past 10 years. And even if all LIRs got a prefix that would still only be some 20k prefixes at best. But you are right, that there is a roll-out plan missing. At some point we need to decide who's job it is to come up with the implementation strategy and a policy for what to do in the mean time. I would like to say that multi6 has moved far enough that it's time to start discussing this. But I think I will save that for after the San Diego IETF meeting. I think also the multi6 WG chairs needs to talk with the ADs of how to proceed with this issue... - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQNgbt6arNKXTPFCVEQLCewCeMsJ6fQuijsW2UW++/PHBXxs74VkAoOXf DZby4qMAQ3rYOlDUo0Irxteq =UDUs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----