On Apr 18, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18-apr-04, at 12:16, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Those are semi-nice features. Not sure I would use it as an excuse to migrate, though, since the need for them can easily be avoided in v4.
Sure. But I do find myself saying "if we were doing IPv6 right now we wouldn't have this problem" more and more.
If you completed that thought, you would realize, "but I'd have so many more problems which are so much harder to overcome (if it is even possible to overcome them), that it really ain't worth it." Of course, many technologies start out as inferior cousins to existing stuff. Just not usually "version 6"....
Multihoming can be done the same way many people do it for IPv4: take addresses from one ISP and announce them to both. Obviously your /48 will be filtered, but as long as you make sure it isn't filtered between your two ISPs, you're still reachable when the link to either fails. However, this means renumbering when switching to another primary ISP. Not much fun, despite the fact that renumbering is much easier in IPv6.
This does not address the issue. If my /48 is filtered, I am still at the mercy of the provider with the super-CIDR. If that network is down, so am I.
True. However, many people don't get to do better than this in v4 either.
Anyone who tries and does not use one of the handful of providers who filter does. IOW: This is a non-argument. The point still stands - without real multi-homing so I do not have to be dependent upon a single vendor, IPv6 is simply not an option. Quick Meta-Question: Why was was this even considered when v6 was being engineered? Are the people who started the v6 movement really that out-of-touch with reality? Or were they arrogant enough to believe they could limit control to a few entities and the user base would just go along with it? -- TTFN, patrick