[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:11:48AM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> >ISPs do exist for customers, not customers do exist  to feed ISPs  
> >in the
> >most convenient way for the ISPs. Some folks seem to forget that,
> >looking at all the discussion trying to ignore the demand for real
> >multihoming (and that includes TE and network-wide routing policy
> >implementation, neither being delivered by things like shim6).
> 
> I think you are contradicting yourself here. Shim6 does give the end- 
> user TE capability.

It doesn't. Unless I'm missing on how I can influence e.g. inbound
routing like I can do with BGP announcements, tagged with special
communities to tweak announcement properties (yes/no, prepending
etc.) and things like routing preference ("local-pref" in BGP
semantics) in my upstream's network or even more far reaching than
that. I cannot. And as far as I hear, folks at NANOG (IESG BoF on
IPv6 multihoming) have clearly laid out why shim6 is NOT what we're
looking for - and why. [this is hearsay, I didn't get around to
check minutes and/or slides yet]

> I am not sure what you mean with  "network-wide routing policy
> implementation"....

As a network administrator I want to define routing properties for
my whole network in a consistent way, not to tweak each policy decision
in each IPv6 stack on each host. The routing policy of a network is
a network property, not a host property. I don't want to HAVE to
control (read: administer!) each and every end device on the network
just to provide proper global routing to it. That's just ridiculous.

> I have still to figure out what the "real multihoming" thing is,

That's the basic problem. The IETF folks either don't understand, or
chose to ignore the requirements. There is a nice 6NET document
detailing all requirements and showing a matrix outlining requirements
against proposed solutions. Outcome: NONE except BGP offer a solution
to ALL requirements.

I'm happy to look into any solution proposed that fulfils the needs.
Unfortunately that's not there yet. I'm sure we all would be happy
to get rid of the latent possible danger of BGP.

> >HOW the requirements are being delivered is another topic. multi6 has
> >resulted in the decision to ignore many critical requirements. We're
> >just asking for something that delivers on the targets. Wasting time
> >with half-solutions is not productive. Halting any development because
> >the magic bullet wasn't found yet ain't either.
> 
> If you have alternative ideas you know how it works - send text.

I don't, as stated.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0