Fred,
So the routing problem was looked at, and making a fundamental
routing change was rejected by both the operational community and
the routing folks.
No, IPv6 doesn't fix (or even change) the routing of the system,
and that problem will fester until it becomes important enough to
change.
From this end of the elephant, we looked at Nimrod and saw potential
there, but did not buy off on it. We also looked at GSE and the
routing folks at the very least seemed bought into that, but it died,
under what I would characterize as a purely political hailstorm.
Yes, the lack of a scalable routing architecture will continue to
fester until it has sufficient political visibility that it exceeds
our pain threshold and we decide to make the change. The problem
with this model is that the pain of change grows daily. Each and
every v6 system that is deployed is yet another bit of installed base
that will need to be updated someday.
The Internet community needs the IETF leadership to understand this
very clearly and to take action to resolve this issue sooner, not
later. As others have said, this is a pay now or pay later
situation, and the pay later portion is MUCH more expensive.
Specifically, the IAB should call for a halt to IPv6 deployment until
consensus is reached on a scalable routing architecture. I realize
that this is painful, but continuing to deploy is simply creating a
v6 mortgage that we cannot afford to pay off.
Regards,
Tony