Subject: RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 08:53:11 -0700

Eliot,

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> Nothing like 60 messages in one day after nothing
> in 6 months ;-)

On the ipv6mh list we averaged 140 posts a month over 8 months, nothing
new to us. This list has been asleep for too long, you just forgot what
is was.

> By the way, Michel, when we use the term tunnel, in any form,
> we really ought to revisit existing technology to see if it
> can be adopted.  Thus Noel's allusion to MIPv6.

In that context, I'm all for it. When you look at MHAP, one of the base
mechanisms is MIPv6-like anyway (the rendezvous points).

> I'm not convinced.  I think we have to consider Craig's
> complexity question, but at the same time ask him what
> he's willing to pay for redundancy for his service, and
> what sort of redundancy he needs.

I don't think this is a fair question to Craig, because he is between
the rock and the hard place. Cisco MUST have an IPv6 internal network
just to save the face.
That being said, what we hear from large companies whose business in not
to sell routers is that they already got the (IPv4) multihoming solution
they want, so why bother with an inferior (IPv6) solution, especially
when almost nobody's asking for it?

> The *real* cost I want to understand is how much someone is
> willing to pay to have fine grain control over their policy
> as they do today with BGP, padding, etc.

We have raised this question before and the answer is that large
customers would be willing to pay large RIR fees for it *if* there was
customer demand (the RIRs would then give a break to operators that have
to support the infrastructure).

Michel.

---

From: "Craig A. Huegen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:10:36 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)

> the rock and the hard place. Cisco MUST have an IPv6 internal network

Actually, I'd disagree with that -- I don't need an internal IPv6 network
to save face.  I have business requirements for a reliable, available,
scalable IPv6-Internet-connected intranet for a global, multi-national
corporation.  My requirements may come a bit sooner than most other
enterprises due to the nature of the business, but that's relatively
minor.

However, at this time I cannot justify to our operations teams the cost or
load of implementing a multi-PA IPv6 network across tens of thousands of
subnets (currently the only accepted multi-homing technique).  It's not
realistically feasible.

Many other enterprise networks are in the same position or are considering
their position at this time.  Until a solution set is not only developed,
but IMPLEMENTED, adoption of IPv6 is severely hindered.  To me, that's the
real goal.

Randy may claim that we're not a marketing organization, but if we're not
considering the requirements or opportunities behind this protocol and
network, then we've failed already.

/cah

---
Craig A. Huegen, Chief Network Architect      C i s c o  S y s t e m s
IT Transport, Network Technology & Design           ||        ||
Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive          ||        ||
San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                ||||      ||||
email: [email-masked]       CCIE #2100      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..