> architecture. That accusation is false, and nothing in IPv6 prevents
> the use of the same, lousy multihoming solution we have today for IPv4.
Just for the record, I was *not* suggesting that IPv4 solves the
multihoming problem (I said nothing about it one way or the other).
I understand that internet-wide advertising of multiple prefixes
for multihomed sites does not scale, and so does not constitute a
solution. (I would not use the word "solution" to describe IPv4's
defacto approach to multihoming.)
> hosts. This is work-in-progress, and is likely to produce solutions
> with a different (but, we hope, acceptable in many contexts) set of
> shortcomings.
Ok, so I think we may be in factual agreement if not in agreement
on emphasis or tone. So, let me repeat my representation here and
ask you if the (hopefully acceptable) shortcomings would likely
have one or more of the following characteristics:
> 1. discouraging the use of multihoming, primarily may making
> multihomed customers pay more for it.
> 2. forcing paths to multihomed sites to be less efficient (at
> least for all but one of the ISP connection points) and or,
> 3. limiting the regions of the internet for which multihoming
> is effective for a given customer.
Keep in mind that these three characteristics are gleaned (and then
negatively spun) directly from what Thomas wrote. The negative spin
was a reaction to what I percieved as a misrepresentation of the
difficulties by Thomas.
Alternatively, maybe you could just point me to the work-in-progress
you refer to (even if it is in the form of IPv6 mailing list archives).
(I'm aware of the IDs on router renumbering, DNS suffix changing, and
the one about using mobility mechanisms for dealing with multihoming.)
PF
