multihoming

[Bill Manning]

% > Bill Manning wrote:
% > How many /64s does each lightbulb get?
% 
% I would say each light bulb get its own unique 64 bit MAC address. Given
% the typical lifespan of a light bulb GE will be able to recycle MAC
% addresses for light bulbs after some years. In my house, each light bulb
% is a /128 address present on three /64 subnets. I'm sure that everybody
% recognizes the vital role of managing an IPv-6 enabled light bulb to the
% point that each light bulb must be multihomed to at least three ISPs.
% It is none of the manufacturer's business neither the utility to know
% when my individual light bulbs are on.

	Your assumptions are noted.  And they might be valid.
	But a manufacturer might want/need to know and a utility
	might want to meter usage.  And I'm sure that I don't want
	either of them to have addresses on the private home network
	and they may not have agreements w/ the ISPs that have peering
	access.  Then of course, they might have thier own network
	into the house... 

% So, if I get three /48s for my home, I can have each room being a
% separate subnet, where light bulbs can be multihomed to three different
% ISPs
% And I still have addresses to spare.

	And link-local, site-local, and the ones for non-generic
	access ... 
	Good thing Richard did that work on source address selection.

% > Or are you making the tacit assumption that everyone 
% > gets enough space to address all the things that are of
% > interest to them, with their OWN block of v6 space?
% 
% Generally speaking, yes. I would say that any home owner _really_
% interested in multihomed light bulbs will get a /48 block of
% portable-within-the-area, provider-independent addresses on top of few
% number of /48 PA blocks). However, I feel that a very large part of the
% world's population will be happy to manage their IPv6 light bulbs on a
% single-homed single-subnet with a /64 block of addresses provided by
% their ISPs.

	I think that is granting ISPs -WAY- too much control.
	Multiple networks are a good thing.  Reduces single
	points of failure and all that. 


% > IMHO, the whole point of CIDR in v4 was to address TWO
% > problems, first, address exaustion. Delegation policies
% > were increasingly finetuned to only delegate as much space
% > as was really needed.  second, a constraint on routing table
% > size.  
% 
% Correct. Since address exhaustion is not a problem in v6, the idea is to
% allocate more addresses than one would ever need, because it will allow
% aggregation and therefore a reasonably manageable routing table size.

	Yet.  We are throwing them away really quickly, all in the
	name of routing table conservation. I remember when it was
	nearly as easy to get a /8 of v4 space as it is to get a /32
	of v6 space. H ratios not withstanding, I remain concerned
	that most people think there are addresses to burn and that
	aggregation will solve the access problems.  
	
	Neither has proven true in the past and I see nothing to
	show that things have changed.  While it is true that aggregation
	can solve the routing problem, it won't solve the capture/access
	problem.  People will not be content with a single point of 
	failure.     
	
	And the business case for being one of the "sanctioned" transit
	providers is nearly an irrestistable target.  Being able to 
	be in a position where whole industries, countries, etc. are
	-REQUIRED- to use my services to acheive "routablity" is something
	devoutly to be wished.  Or a threat to be designed around, depending
	on your point of view.

% > It does not mean that we should hammer
% > IPv6 into the IPv4 mold nor should you restrict your thinking 
% > to using v4 routing protocols for v6 address space.
% 
% I fully agree.
	
% > Neither the delegation problems nor the routing problems
% > are tractable with current thinking.  Hierarchical
% > delegation/routing, while known to work, do not meet the
% > wants of the user populace. They will find a way around
% > what they perceive as impediments.
% 
% I beg to differ. It is possible that you have not been following the
% current multihoming developments.

	You differ that people will find ways to get what they want?
	Or do you think that delegation and routing are tractable?

	WRT multihoming, It is possible and likely. There are way too 
	many good people involved.

% 
% Michel.
% 


-- 
--bill