Subject: RE: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:54:45 -0500

>Production level v6 address assignment can begin as soon as
>we agree on a multihomed solution.

Production addresses are now being handed out now to ISPs and ISPs to
end users.  None of us here and can stop that it is not our decision.
I won't go into the reasons why it is happening but it is and far more
than most would imagine.  But, no one is putting IPv6 in production mode
at this point.  The reason is that more testing is required and more
applications to be ported.  That is what is happening now from places I
know in Asia, U.S. and Europe.  The first production use of IPv6 will be
3GPP IM subsystem and I believe by this time next year it will exists.
But we have thought that before so we will see.

>Is it OK, Jim?

Multihoming is clearly documented to be a problem area.  Any user I know
is aware of the problem.  But it is perceived to be an ISP problem
mostly.  I think it is more than an ISP problem but a routing
architecture problem (on that Tony and I do agree).  Even large user
sites will have multihome issues before packets even enter the public
Internet.

For those facing this now with some test bed deployment where their
organizations are multihomed and those tests involve multiple ISPs and
remote geography, the only solution is peering and they will use the
essence of 3178 till there is a mutli-home solution.

IPv6 deployment will not wait for multi-homing to be solved.  But, Ipv6
deployment is not today far enough a long that a quick and expedient
solution would be possible at the intersection from test bed deployment
to wide production deployment.  More importantly what I believe will
bust open is home use with IPv6.  If multi6 can deliver a multi-home set
of answers in stages with step 1, step 2, step 3, do not break IPv6
applications in process, and do not break the IPv6 address it will
integrate well into the current deployment.

But for anyone to believe we have time to completely revamp IPv6 or the
market will buy into it, I think is wishful thinking not grounded in
reality.

Regards,
/jim
>							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:50:12 +0859 ()

Jim;

> end users.

No.

Production means QUANTITY.

> than most would imagine.

I fully agree with you. It has been and is happening for these 8
years and will continue to be happening for next 8 years.

> The first production use of IPv6 will be

3GPP has nothing to do with the Internet.

The world largest deployment of mobile-capable IPv6 Internet is our
LIN6-based project in Kyoto with hundreds of wireless base stations
(but, with little users, because the base stations are, of course,
IPv4 capable).

> mostly.

Then, it is a problem of RIRs, collections of ISPs.
problem is solved.

> For those facing this now with some test bed deployment where their

As the problem is scalability, test bed, which means small
scale, deployment is helpless.

> IPv6 deployment will not wait for multi-homing to be solved.

Then, what has been waited for?

> More importantly what I believe will
> bust open is home use with IPv6.

Some may use IPv6 at research labo. Very few at home.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: "Michael H. Lambert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:06:29 -0500

--On Saturday, 15 March 2003 21:54 -0500 "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> IPv6 deployment will not wait for multi-homing to be solved. [...]

I don't think multi-homing will wait for multi-homing to be solved, either. 
I'm sure there are many sites out there, not "knowing" there are problems 
with MH, that will blindly multi-home using PA addresses.  And I bet many 
of them will be quite happy.  What we need are reports of operational 
experience with PA MH.

Michael

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael H. Lambert, Network Engineer           Phone: +1 412 268-4960 |
| Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center               FAX:   +1 412 268-8200 |
| 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA  15213       [email-masked]        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:56:22 +0100

> I don't think multi-homing will wait for multi-homing to be solved, 
> either. I'm sure there are many sites out there, not "knowing" there 
> are problems with MH, that will blindly multi-home using PA addresses. 
>  And I bet many of them will be quite happy.  What we need are reports 
> of operational experience with PA MH.

Not only that, but it also works very well.

- kurtis -