On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote:
Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI?
The better solution is the enemy of the good solution. 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.
They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space.
Could you please explain this a bit more in detail ? To me this sounds like "engines will never fly".
Last I checked around there were some promissing new proposal on the way for how to solve this very basic problem.
Could you please be a bit more verbose.
And in the meantime, drop the thought about multihoming and PI space, start to think about other ways to use the possibility IPv6 give us.
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. Best Regards Oliver Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany oliver@bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0