(6bone) Ingress filtering (was: asymmetric routing)

[wizard@italiansky.com (Matteo Tescione)]

> Problem with IPv6 multihoming is that IPv4 multihoming is so "easy" and
> works quite well.  It may be we can't design a protocol or equivalent that
> will handle the scenarios responsibly and as well.
Easy???
According to you if ipv4 multihoming is easy, ipv6 multihoming will be
impossible...
And if ipv6 multihoming will be impossible I suggest to stop experimenting
ipv6.
Again, if I can, a simple question: what is ipv6 goal?
Matteo Tescione
IP & Security Manager
COMV6 site

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "Joel Baker" <lucifer@lightbearer.com>
Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: (6bone) Ingress filtering (was: asymmetric routing)


> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Joel Baker wrote:
> > Any protocol which does not support the ability to control traffic
balance
> > to some degree... will just be ignored. After all, why should a business
> > spend millions of dollars to adopt a protocol which makes their
connections
> > far less efficient?
>
> A protocol that will make multihoming work _at all_ would fit the criteria
> IMO.
>
> > interests is... well, just read the sentance. Anything which doesn't
give
> > out PI space, and routes, to everyone who has them now, just isn't
likely
> > to really fly.
>
>
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
>