[ih] Internet without entrenched factions?

[Ole Troan]

>>> Well, there's one area that stills needs to be fixed, and it's one that the
>> ROAD group flagged in 1992 [RFC1380] and the IRTF Routing Research Group flagged
>> in 2011 [RFC6115] and the ipv6ops WG is still discussing today. We don't know how to
>> support site multihoming in a competitive environment for tens of millions of small
>> and medium enterprises.
> 
> 
> ILNP was the best answer to that question and works well.  All we have to do is say yes.

Yes, definitely.
One thing ILNP is not good at is network-based multi-homing. Allowing the network to do the path selection. I.e. rewrite locators at the network edge.

The current NAT based solution does actually solve that problem well (while creating others). The entrenched part of the IETF can of course not accept that, because it would undermine their whole “value-system”.

Back to history. IPv6 should have had identifier/locator split from the start. I wasn’t there, but I understood it was close with Mike O’Dell’s 8+8 and GSE proposals? Anyone who can shed more light on what happened and why that path was not chosen?

Ole