[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI

Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:10 +0100 (CET), Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> <snip>
> > If IPv4 offers PI = provider _independence_ and multihoming
> > and IPv6 doesn't, then IPv4 is obviously the better solution for
> > those who requires this functionallity.
> >
> > Thus they won't use IPv6.
> >
> > Please keep in mind: The _customer_ votes, not you, not me.
> >
> > And as the majority of the large and a significant portion of medium
> > size businesses are obviously not willing to accept an IP protocol not
> > providing this functionallity, IPv6 will remain at it's current status:
> >
> > A technical playground for technically interested people.
> 
> a very true point in one way but that is again as I see it, we're still
> thinking IPv4 when talking IPv6.

We're thinking Real World(TM).

> Why do they need multihoming and PI? They don't trust the ISP and vendors
> to deliver them uptime and freedom... isn't this a problem the ISP and
> vendors should try to solve? Of course, the idea of easy renumbering was
> suppose to solve this but again, we're thinking IPv4 so it's not easy to
> understand.
> 
> Again, we don't need PI space and multihoming, what we need are a way to
> give the users and GOOD connectivity (uptime, speed etc) and make it easy
> for them to switch providers as they see fit.

That's only part of the reasoning.  Customers don't want to be locked
in to any one ISP.  They want to have bargaining power which only comes
with the ability to switch ISPs at will.

> <snip>
> >
> > Hmm, please let me translate:
> > "Even if the car doesn't drive and the engine doesn't deliver a single
> > horse power at the wheels, drop the thought about driving,
> > start to think about other way to use the possibility this great car
> > gives us."
> >
> > Sound like newspeak:
> > If we _think_ we can't solve the problem, drop discussing the problem.
> 
> for several years this discussion have been going on, still no real
> solution. IPv6 give us the freedom todo ALOT of things, USE those
> possibilities, if we have to change how IP are done, some TCP headers etc,
> then do it... propose a good idea and prove it. That could give us
> multihoming. Actually there is a master thesis about howto create
> connectivity for TCP session even if one of the links went down, the
> session just used another IP (1)... the user don't notice anything
> either and it have zero problem working with standard tcp-stacks since it
> use the extended header of IPv6.

Yea, that's known as SCTP.

> That's just ONE of many possible ways...

You're only handwaiving and saying "no".  We are looking for ways to fit
IPv6 to the reality of how millions of people and corporations use and
want to use the Internet, technically and commercially.

-- 
Andre