Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying

[Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>]

Owen DeLong wrote:

> > The number of routing table entries is growing exponentially, not
> > because of increase of the number of ISPs, but because of 
> > multihoming.
>
> Again, wrong. The number is growing exponentially primarily because
> of the fragmentation that comes from recycling addresses.

Such fragmentation only occurs when address ranges are rent to
others for multihoming but later recycled for internal use,
which means it is caused by multihoming.

Anyway, such cases are quite unlikely and negligible.

> There are actually ways to do IPv6 multihoming that don’t require
> using the same prefix with both providers.

That's what I proposed 20 years ago both with IPv4 and IPv6 in:

    https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-02.txt

> Yes, there are tradeoffs,
> but these mechanisms aren't even practical in IPv4,

Wrong. As is specified by rfc2821:

   When the lookup succeeds, the mapping can result in a list of
   alternative delivery addresses rather than a single address, because
   of multiple MX records, multihoming, or both.  To provide reliable
   mail transmission, the SMTP client MUST be able to try (and retry)
   each of the relevant addresses in this list in order, until a
   delivery attempt succeeds.  However, there MAY also be a configurable

the idea of end to end multihoming is widely deployed by SMTP at
the application layer, though wider deployment require TCP
modification as I wrote in my draft.

Similar specification is also found in section 7.2 of rfc1035.

> but have been
> sufficiently widely implemented in IPv6 to say that they are viable
> in some cases.

You are just wrong. IP layer has very little to do with it.

                                                Masataka Ohta

PS

LISP is garbage.