Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy
- To: Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>
- Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy
- From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis at kurtis dot pp dot se>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:43:22 +0200
- Cc: Michel Py <michel at arneill-py.sacramento dot ca dot us>, "Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen at cisco dot com>, Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore dot fi>, Brian Carpenter <brian at hursley dot ibm dot com>, global-v6 at lists dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <20030522140824.R67740@Space.Net>
- List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6/>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: Discussion of new global IPv6 policy development <global-v6.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6>,<mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6>,<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Sender: email@example.com
What *is* the current state of affairs concerning multihoming solutions?
There are a number of types of solutions on the table. There are a number of more detailed proposals. There is no consensus on any of this (yet). The multi6 WG of IETF is having the first meeting in a long time at the Vienna IETF meeting. One of the goals of this meeting is to try and get consensus (if not before the meeting) on what solution class/space/type we are looking at. If nothing else, at least manage to trim the tracks down to fewer.
As for timeline. Hard to say. We could adopt a interim solution that would most likely stop work on a permanent one again until the pain level rise again. We could also simply work on a permanent solution. This will take at least a year. Then we need to get protocols done...and then we need to get it implemented and deployed. In best case. 4-5 years. Worst case 10?
- kurtis -