From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ccr.org (static-96-255-157-131.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.157.131]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190A621F2E6 for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 11:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ccr.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 165BB119C54; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 14:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ccr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ccr.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1583C119C53; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 14:54:07 -0400 (EDT) To: Dave Taht In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:21:17 PDT." Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 14:54:07 -0400 From: Mike O'Dell Message-Id: <20140607185407.165BB119C54@ccr.org> Cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Cerowrt-devel Digest, Vol 31, Issue 4 X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 18:54:07 -0000 Having links from multiple providers "just work" is indeed a grand idea. Unfortunately, IPv6 doesn't deal with multihoming any better than IPv4 doesn't; in fact, it's pretty clearly worse. you can get the bath water to run out a different hole by tipping the bathtub, but you can't make in run *into* the bathtub the same way. I agree that nested NATs are suboptimal and usually unnecessary. As for falling off the cliff of bridging, it depends entirely on how far you fall and what you land upon. The fundamental problem is that the L2 fabric needs dynamic routing more sophisticated than a Spanning Tree. It's not hard to do and is quite effective at solving the problems of transiting local dynamic topology without annoying the L3 machinery. It even provides for traffic engineering of different traffic types without having to suffer through the myriad NO-OPs created by the IETF trying to solve the problem in a network flat as road-kill on an Interstate. -mo