[lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261

> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> Agreed. The flaws of IPv6 comes down to not solving the
> multihomign/routing scaling/world starvation problem.
> That is an IETF problem, and there is a WG for it.

For the record, and the following are verifiable _facts_: the IRTF and
the IETF have been working on this problem for the last ten years. One
of the Area Directors responsible for the multi6 WG has called it the
"Titanic". By Kurtis' own account it is going to be 5 to 10 more years
before they find a solution, if they do. The WG that Kurtis co-chairs
has not even agreed to _requirements_ that were due two years ago; they
are calling it recommendations now with zero proposals on the table.

Anyone that wants to have a glimpse of what the IETF is going to do for
them is encouraged to read Kurtis' own draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kurtis-multihoming-longprefix-
00.txt
Which basically says that we should allow /48 prefixes punched from PA
space in the Global Routing Table. I am sure the educated reader that
subscribes to this list will appreciate, especially smaller LIRs that
can't afford a c12416 or M160 to hold a huge routing table.

Michel.