[ih] Internet without entrenched factions?

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 15-May-26 18:35, Ole Troan wrote:
>>>> 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”.

I could name names, but I think the operational part of the IPv6 community has mainly got over that. My personal opinion is, given that ILNP seems to lack those thrust rockets, is that NPTv6 (prefix translation) is the least bad option. (It's actually a little bit like customer-edge ILNP. Or maybe a *lot* like. It's clearly a loc/id separation solution. It's been in Linux since kernel 3.7.)
  
> Back to history. 

This is a case where history sheds light on current problems.

> 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?

IMHO, the "too hard" bucket intervened. I'm among the guilty.

     Brian

> 
> Ole