Subject: RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:40:14 -0800

Brian,

> Brian Carpenter wrote:
> It clearly makes sense for small businesses, which gets
> you into the realm of tens of thousands of MH customers
> in a metro area. But I still have difficulty seeing it
> for domestic customers by the million. From what I see,
> they have enough trouble dealing with one ISP. Of
> course, an MH solution that would scale to millions per
> metro would be nice to have.

From my seat, there is not much of a difference between thousands and
millions per metro, or between millions and billions in the entire
world. The aggregation scheme we have worked out (64K areas of 64K MH
sites) fits the bill, and none of the 64K local routes or 64K global
routes is unreasonable.

Michel.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:40:29 +0100

> sites) fits the bill, and none of the 64K local routes or 64K global

I'm not commenting specifically on your proposal, since I haven't
read it, but it's my intuition that any solution that is any good would
scale to millions if it would scale to tens of thousands. 

   Brian

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:58:44 +0859 ()

Brian;

> scale to millions if it would scale to tens of thousands. 

Is your statement applicable to the current routing table
with more than tens of thousands of entries? :-)

							Masataka Ohta

PS

I, myself, think it better to have one with several hundred entries.