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

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:55:16 -0800, "Salman Asadullah" <sasad at cisco.com>
said:
> You seem to be far away from the ground realities.
> 
> Lots of efforts (Multi6, SHIM6, etc.) are being made to solve these real 
> issues for a good reason.
> 

Regardless of the efforts, from a provider POV it's only "work in
progress". Make sure your preferred technology is implemented across all
platforms and accompanied by solutions for traffic-engineering,
filtering and other issues. Then you may have a viable alternative to
present to the operators community. Don't expect anybody to adopt new
technologies unless they represent some progress.

I'm not saying that shim6 is DOA. It *may become* an alternative, but it
*is not*. Unless you can convince content-providers to trust their
upstream to provide redundancy and thus eliminate the need for end-site
multihoming you have the following realistic short-term alternatives:

 * Keep ipv6 experimental and postpone operational 
   deployment until there's a good technical solution 
   to the multi-homing problem or a way to eliminate
   the DFZ and the related concerns about routing-
   table size.

 * Adopt a PI policy for v6 similar to the current
   v4-policy, and hope that moore can keep up with
   the growth of the routing-table.

>From there policies will have to evolve, along with the development of
new technology. Evolution is a perpetual process, not a project with a
finite deadline.

PS! am I missing something, or is IETF/IAB trying to copy the ITU in the
way they produce paper-standards? Is that really such a good idea?

//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  heldal at eml.cc