[arin-ppml] Unique route?

[Eliot Lear]

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>   And we know that
>> there is no new magic in IPv6 routing:
>> multihoming still requires a unique global route.
>>      
>
> Not true. The route does not need to be global. There are ways to do
> this with two ISPs who peer locally and cooperate to keep the traffic
> flowing without actually announcing the multihomed customer's individual
> route globally. Instead there is an aggregate route being announce by
> both and this aggregate holds multiple multihomed customers.
>
> Obviously, this solves the route table problem by combining a technical
> action and a business action into a total solution. It's not the thing
> operations people normally think of because they are not involved in the
> commercial side of the business or any partnerships beyond vanilla
> peering agreements.
>    

It's not the thing business people normally think of either, because a 
serious concern they have is lock-in, and this doesn't solve that on its 
own.  Let us agree that there is no "one size fits all" approach, and 
then we can apply some assumptions that argue in favor of geographically 
assigned addresses (which is really where your proposal leads).  There 
is a reasonable argument that such addressing is scalable from a routing 
system standpoint, if you can get to that state.  To the best of my 
knowledge, nobody has gotten to that state.

Eliot