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

At 03:17 AM 30/11/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> 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".
>
>one of the key points from the nanog session was that shim6 is the
>*wrong* work in progress.  what is needed is _site_ multi-homing,
>not host multi-homing.

"wrong"?  "right"?

Usual response - if you believe that there is a better way of doing this 
work through the issues here, then write up an approach, gather support, 
get peer review etc etc.

As I said at NANOG, part of the problem with distributed models where there 
is action at a distance is to understand and clearly identify instances of 
gratuitous packet header rewriting by hostile agents  as compared to packet 
rewriting by agents who believe that they are doing this in a friendly and 
helpful fashion. This becomes a challenging problem,of course.

I don't think any single approach today is the one true right approach at 
this point, but unless we explore this space with some diligence, allow for 
experimentation and keep an open mind on this work then you are going to 
get intractably wedged between the desire for greater flexibility in the 
use of addresses as a form of semi-persistent endpoint identifiers  and the 
desire for reduced flexibility in the use of addresses as forwarding tokens 
in order to keep the routing space confined to readily computable dimensions.

But of course _all_ this will be solved in MPLS - right? :-)

  Geoff