On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
It's possible to 'solve' these problems in the future: Forbid IP level multihoming for IPv6 which crosses aggregation boundaries. I.e. absolutly no multihoming that inflates more then your providers routing tabling, connect to whoever you want, but no AS should emit a route for any other AS without aggregating it into their own space without a special agreement of limited scope (i.e. not globally!)
Who is going to "forbid" this ? And who is going to enforce this ?
Ahem. The same people who prevent the current global routing table from being flooded by /25 - /30s.
We need to stop looking at IP addresses as host-identifyers (thats what DNS is for) and look at them as path-identifyers.
Perhaphs. But (stating the facts) for now, both in IPv4 *and* in IPv6 IP addresses carry dual semantics - host-identifiers (aka end-point identifiers) *and* path-identifiers (aka locators).
I though it was explicit with IPv6 that end-nodes are not-host identifyers. In the real world today, IPv6 addresses are certantly not host-identifyers: Many hosts (including the one I'm typing on) have multiple IP addresses, and sites have a farm of web serverers behind a single IP address. We may pretend that a IP address means a host, but it doesn't.