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

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 05:36:11AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
> >> Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the 
> >> limit of deployed capability of routing.
> >>
> >> Then what?
> >
> >You buy new routers.
> 
> So what you are saying is that _I_ want address portability and _you_ have 
> to buy new routers.

No, what he's saying is "_you_ want _my_ business, so _you_ have to
deliver what _I_ want. If you cannot deliver, there is no business for
_you_".

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).

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.

IMHO PI can buy us the time to find Something New[tm] which delivers
without the associated possible problems. Until then, there are two
options: halt IPv6 completely, now, or implement as sensible PI policy
(1 PI prefix per ASN, no questions asked) to buy us the time. I don't
know which way is the better one. But this whole "go to IPv6 but no
cookies^WPI for you" ain't fly, that for sure (IMHO, YMMV).


Best regards,
Daniel

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