[arin-ppml] Routing Research Group is about to decide its scalable routing recommendation

[Michel Py]

> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> As I see it, the problem space has three, high level,
> diverging paths:
> A Multihoming happens entirely at the host, making
> PA-only possible.
> B The routing system can scale to PI, so everyone has PI.
> C Neither A or B is possible, so we attempt to decide
> who is worthy of PI.

There is also D: Dual space protocols (ID/LOC). None of them really got
traction in the IETF.

> It seems to me we are in case C now.

We are. And in the case of IPv6, we are because the RIRs passed policies
to allocate PI to non-LIRs, not because the IETF wanted so.


> the IETF tried A several years ago and gave up, and the
> IETF is now trying B. (roughly)

I don't think that the IETF gave up on A. And although the IRTF is
looking at B, there still is a long road before it gets traction in the
IETF, IMHO.


> Which raises an interesting question, why hasn't SCTP taken off more?

I have met in person with some of the guys heavily involved in SCTP ways
back when; very interesting work. I think that in the end the reason it
has not taken off more is basically the same reason none of the
host-based multihoming solutions has taken off either: too complex.

Anything that involves multiple addresses per host and heaven forbid
even worse multiple interfaces per host is a nightmare to TE and
troubleshoot. Imagine trying to troubleshoot a network issue with your
typical tech support subcontracted overseas when the thing involves
multiple interfaces with multiple addresses crossing multiple backbones.
Good luck; as of today there are no tools for this and no money to build
them.

Sadly, nothing matches the raw simplicity of this unique PI prefix that,
unfortunately, makes the DFZ big.

Michel.