[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 21:01:59 +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>Just for your (other than Kurt) information, there is running code
>of a multi6 proposal which does not bloat global routing table
>size, which has been running even before the multi6 WG was formed.
With todays >10GB backbones, we need running *hardware*.

>The only problem for the deployment of the proposal is that
>IPv6 is not deployed.
This is *the* cat-tail-problem we are talking about:
IPv6 *won't* be deployed if it can't provide at a minimum all
commonly used features of IPv4 and does something better.
Multihoming with unique and world wide valid IP adresses
*is* a feature commonly used by *large* customers who
pay significant amounts of the ISP infrastructure.

At the end of the day the technical guys have to justify the
invests into new infrastructure to the commercial guys.
They will simply ask:
"What does IPv6 gain to our company"
"Oh well, instead of having first class PA/PI adresses, we will
  have second class multi6 accessibility and our true address
  range will be at the mercy of our Upstream/ISP"

If you want to see what happens with investments of
artificial "comission" protocols, have a look at UMTS ;-/

Ceterum censeo: Either the routing bottleneck is removed,
or we won't see a successfull IPv6 in the next fifty years.
And sadly as it is: To make some address range globaly
routable as *numeric packet address* and not as super-DNS
or second class host-hast-to-start-search addreses
the routers which do the job need some information about
the goal of the packet, of either static or dynamic type.
And as the ISP market has no regional hierachy like a
postal service, it must be world wide.

IMHO the only chance of a commercially successfull
deployment is some sort of make-it-better-than-BGP
which can handle large amounts of prefix data.

As we can't expect such a change in the near future,
in my personal view the policy needs a modification
which:
a) advances and pushes forward IPv6 deployment,
instead of the >=200 limit which is rather contraproductive.
b) *currently* keeps the cover on the multihoming pot
until the problem is *really* solved by technology.

Sorry that I have no better news, but mathematics and
physical law's won't be changed by discussions, as well
as economical laws won't.

Best Regards
Oliver Bartels



Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0