> From: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> The costs aren't just getting pushed to the multihoming site, because
> the software that has to deal with multihoming isn't just distributed to
> those users. The costs are getting pushed on to software developers,
> and from there, to everybody who uses IPv6 software
This seems to me to be like complaining that support for multiprocessor
machines in Windows, Linux etc is pushing costs onto people with uniprocessors
workstations, because there's extra OS code to handle multiple processors, and
the software that has to deal with multiple processors isn't just distributed
to people with multiprocessor machines, etc, etc. Would not the same argument
also apply to encrytion, Mobile6, and a whole other list of 'mandatory'
components?
> Contrast this with an approach that says: "... all of your inbound
> traffic will be routed through one of a set of aggregators that hide
> your real (PA) prefies and link transitions from the rest of the
> network, and which tunnel ... your traffic to you over one or more of
> your PA prefixes. ... *That* approach would put the costs squarely on
> those who benefited.
That's certainly viable, and it doesn't depend on deployment of any new
"stuff". However, I have to wonder why this hasn't happened already.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf