On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:52:19PM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
The alternative is a multihoming scheme that does not require a prefix per site. But that doesn't match the stated requirement of 'conventional', 'proven', 'working' [sic], 'feature-complete'.
Those weren't the "stated requirements" on an alternative multihoming scheme,, but only the attributes of conventional BGP multihoming. Please don't lay words into my mouth I didn't say.
The operational community needs to reach consensus on what its priorities are. We fought the CIDR wars to keep the routing subsystem working and the operational community were the primary backers of that. To not support scalable multihoming is to reverse that position entirely.
CIDR didn't have the big disadvantages to operators (at least non that I can identify, not having personally lived thru the CIDR migration). Operators DO support scalable multihoming, but it has to deliver what they want/need. HOW this can be achieved is the task of the IETF and the REAL challenge. shim6 is only "the easy way out". Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0