Fernando Gont published an Individual Internet Draft (meaning it hasn’t been adopted by any IETF WG yet) describing the Problem Statement about IPv6 Support for Multiple Routers and Multiple Interfaces. It’s so nice to see someone finally acknowledging the full scope of the problem and describing it succinctly. However, I cannot help but point out that:

• I was ranting about that problem in 2009 (15 years ago) and did a summary of older rants in 2015.
• It was evident to everyone but the religious zealots that the only solution we have at the moment is either NAT (because stuff simply does not work otherwise) or host-based solutions that never got implemented (apart from a few rare cases of multipath TCP).

Anyway, Fernando wraps up his draft with:

As a result, this document concludes that protocol improvements that accommodate these deployment scenarios are warranted.

I wouldn’t be surprised if no IPv6-related working group adopts the draft – the number of vocal people with severe cognitive dissonance firmly believing in their interpretation of IPv6 is simply too large. You might enjoy the comments to my old rants saying, “we solved the problem with PI prefixes” (really?). There’s also the never-ending “we don’t need no DHCPv6” saga that hurts everyone trying to deploy certain IPv6 mobile devices into somewhat-controlled enterprise IPv6 networks.

No wonder we’re still yammering about the adoption ratio of a 29-year-old protocol.