Citeren address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net:
Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net
You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Randy Bush) 2. Re: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI (Andre Oppermann)
--__--__--
Message: 1 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:49:17 -1000 To: Salman Asadullah <sasad@cisco.com> Cc: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no>, Oliver Bartels <oliver@bartels.de>, "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, roger@jorgensen.no Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real issues for a good reason.
i gather that the message that leslie daigle was given at the last nanog was not well-transmitted to the ietf. no big surprise.
you may want to look at http://nanog.org/mtg-0510/real/ipv6-bof.ram
randy
--__--__--
Message: 2 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:13:39 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <oppermann@networx.ch> To: Salman Asadullah <sasad@cisco.com> CC: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no>, Oliver Bartels <oliver@bartels.de>, "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>, roger@jorgensen.no Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Salman Asadullah wrote:
You seem to be far away from the ground realities.
Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real issues for a good reason.
Neither Multi6 nor SHIM6 are even in an draft RFC state yet and to be workable they'd have to be implemented on every end-host out there. That is every operating system in sufficient existence. That puts IPv6 even further in the already distant future considering common OS upgrade and replacement cycles.
Second this doesn't solve the renumbering problem. Renumbering is not just giving hosts new IP addresses but alost managing DNS and Firewalls. No even remotely workable and scaleable solution has been presented yet.
So nice try but no cookie.
-- Andre
Regards, Salman
At 10:55 AM 11/25/2005 +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote: <snip> If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for those who requires this functionallity.
Thus they won't use IPv6.
Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me.
And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status:
A technical playground for technically interested people.
a very true point in one way but that is again as I see it, we're still thinking IPv4 when talking IPv6.
Why do they need multihoming and PI? They don't trust the ISP and vendors to deliver them uptime and freedom... isn't this a problem the ISP and vendors should try to solve? Of course, the idea of easy renumbering was suppose to solve this but again, we're thinking IPv4 so it's not easy to understand.
Again, we don't need PI space and multihoming, what we need are a way to give the users and GOOD connectivity (uptime, speed etc) and make it easy for them to switch providers as they see fit.
<snip>
Hmm, please let me translate: "Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a single horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving, start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car gives us."
Sound like newspeak: If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the problem.
for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers etc, then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since it use the extended header of IPv6.
That's just ONE of many possible ways...
(1) it's a master thesis writting by a student related to University of Tromsø as part of the Pasta project, www.pasta.cs.uit.no
--
------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@stud.cs.uit.no | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------
End of address-policy-wg Digest
participants (1)
-
jkuijer＠dds.nl