multihoming

[Bill Manning]

% >> I was under the impression that IPv6 multihoming required an ASN?
% >It does indeed require one as the only way to be multihomed today in IPv6 is to be a xTLA.
% 
% 	depending on what you mean by "multihoming" and what kind of failure
% 	you want to cope with.
% 	yes, if you want to do currently-practiced provider-independent address/
% 	punching-hole routing info style multihoming, you need an ASN.
% 
% 	RFC3178 is working just fine for me without ASN or provider-independent
% 	address/punching hole (basically, you get two /48 prefixes from two
% 	upstream provider, and you can cope with link failure to upstream).
% 
% 	btw, i wonder why it is justified by people doing punching-hole style
% 	multihome, to taint/overload worldwide routing table for the benefit of
% 	a leaf site.  i guess we need a better routing protocol, or something.
% 
% itojun

	tainting/overloading the routing table for IPv6 is 
	a non-issue at this point in time.  Some 400 prefixes
	are active.  What ought to be of more concern is the
	need to get a /48, -per provider- to deal w/ multihoming.
	This does not bode well for effective address conservation.

	But yes, we do need better routing protocols.

--bill