Most end-user network managers I deal with require these characteristicsWait. This is interesting. From what people here was saying before - I drew the conclusion that end-users wanted non-uniqueness aka site-locals to hide their topology. You are saying something else?
of their public network address allocations:
1) uniqueness (sometimes expressed as "autonomy")
2) portability
I can see that.
3) stability
Do you mean as a derivate of portability or for some other reason?
In many cases, requirement two is driven by a desire to implement multiple connections to the public networks via more than one service provider (multihoming).
So by portability you mean the ability to have a prefix announcement accepted by multiple providers.
The above properties of a prefix is not the same as PI, as well as PI properties are not the same as above. For both IPv4 and IPv6.While PI is not an absolute requirement, the present state of our
technology and standards (for v6 as well as v4) force us to PI as the only
implemented mechanism which satisfies the functional requirements
enumerated above. If we can develop and write into the standards some
(Someone could say NAT and SL but I am glad you didn't) Agreed.
For those end-user-network managers who are aware of the details of theI am not familiar with the above, but I generally tend to agree that NREN and other networks are far different. For good and bad.
NREN allocations, this situation provokes pure, incandescent fury: the
academic entities are seen as having been granted special (and grossly
preferential) treatment, while the commercial (as distinguished from
service-provider) networks are subject to callous indifference and
excluded thereby from direct access to stable network address allocations.
We can't even claim "separate but equal" for this state of affairs, and
the universal principle of Brown V. Board of Education still holds, even
for networks. [For those not familiar with recent US history, send me mail
directly for a brief explanation of the above reference. AEB]
Most of the end-user-network managers among my clients now multihome, andI find this funny. A number of studies have shown that if this is what you are after, multihoming and BGP is the wrong way to go - but never mind.
will continue to require multihomed service in future. In every case
where the user's network is multihomed, the multiple independent
connections are seen as crucial for maintenance of high availability of
the client's services to the public networks; and high availability isThis worries me but is more a topic of Nanog, or my planned presentation at the Barcelona RIPE rather than IPng.
considered an absolute requirement for survival of the business. In some
cases there are regulatory requirements which can result in civil or
administrative sanctions (including, in the worst event, loss of operating
licenses) if the services should be found unavailable for significant
periods of time. Yes, it is possible, at least in theory, for commercial
service providers to sustain the required level of availability, but most
of my clients have found, much to their distress, that the US ISPs are
almost uniformly incapable of doing so in practice. In almost every case,
the administrative managers for these user networks are simply and flatly
unwilling to put their businesses at the mercy of a single ISP.
Based on conversations with my clients, I cannot find it within the scopeHmm. So if someone where to write up a draft on how to do resilient routing, with different alternatives and pros and cons, could you take this to your customers? Randy, is this something to add to the Barcelona topics? I think I have some slides to start this off....(now all we need is a logo and we have a project)
of my imagination (or, for that matter, of theirs) that these networks
will give up the mutilhoming requirement at any time within the
foreseeable future.
Home networks may be another matter, but I would give my eyeteeth to get aNotice that this comes at a price. You and me are willing to pay for this, but how many are?
stable, portable (and, thereby, multihome-capable) IPv6 allocation for
_my_ home network, as that network also supports supports my office and
suspect that we will find increasing use of "home" networks for business
activity, and increasing demand for stability of network locator
Sure, but are you willing to pay for it?
can't multihome. Based on experience with my client base, I cannot agreeI agree. Your client base seems to be exactly the target group. However, they also seems to be willing to pay for the service, as otherwise they will suffer financial loss that is higher than a days salary (if you can't log in from your home network).
with the postulate that many networks will not find lack of multihome
support a barrier to implementation of v6.
The current speculation about "what the users _really_ need" (as
distinguished from what they _say_ they need) smacks to me of "all
networks are equal, but some are more equal than others" (with apologies
to _Animal Farm_). It seems to me that we have some technical problems
Agreed. - kurtis - -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
