v6 multihoming (Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6)

[Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox () packetrade com>]

Hi Christian,
 I am not seeing how v4 exhaustion, transition to v6, multihoming in v6 and destruction ov DFZ are correlated.

If you took everything on v4 today and migrated it to v6 tomoro the routing table would not grow - actually by my 
calculation it should shrink (every ASN would only need one prefix to cover its current and anticipated growth). So 
we'll see 220000 routes reduce to 25000.

The technology we have now is not driving multihoming directly and v4 vs v6 is not a factor there.

So in what way is v6 destroying DFZ?

Steve

On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:13:50PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> Amazink!  Some things on NANOG _never_ change.  Trawling for trolls I must be.
>
> If you want to emulate IPv4 and destroy the DFZ, yes, this is trivial.  And you should go ahead and plan that 
> migration.
>
> As you well known, one of the core assumptions of IPv6 is that the DFZ policy stay intact, ostensibly to solve a very 
> specific scaling problem.
>
> So, go ahead and continue talking about migration while ignoring the very policies within which that is permitted to 
> take place and don't let me interrupt that ranting.
>
> Best Regards,
> Christian 
>
> --
> Sent from my BlackBerry.      
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox () packetrade com>
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:55:06 
> To:Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch () corp earthlink net>
> Cc:Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>, owner-nanog () merit edu,       Donald Stahl <don () calis blacksun org>, 
> nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
>
>
> multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams.
>
> the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group
>
> this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level
>
> Steve
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> > Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is pretty pointless.
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my BlackBerry.      
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>
> >
> > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33 
> > To:Donald Stahl <don () calis blacksun org>
> > Cc:nanog () nanog org
> > Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote:
> >
> > > > That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer  
> > > > 7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3.  If we'd (the  
> > > > community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to  
> > > > Google's applications whether the content came from a site hosted  
> > > > on a v4 address, or a v6 address, or even both.
> > > If Google does not have v6 connectivity then how are they going to  
> > > crawl those v6 sites?
> >
> > I think we're debating from very similar positions...
> >
> > v6 isn't the ideal scenario of '96 extra bits for free', because if  
> > life was so simple, we wouldn't need to ask this question.
> >
> > Andy