Re: Requirements for IP Multihoming Architectures

[Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>]

>
>Multi-attaching to the same provider is a simplified case of the
>general cidr multi-homing technique, which doesn't suffer from:
>
>  + contribution to AS exhaustion (private-use ASNs can be used)

why is this a pressing issue - it seems that the move to 4 octet
AS numbers is pretty much an absolute requirement, and as such its
just a case of when, not if.


>  + path or prefix bloat (the prefixes announced by the multi-homing
>    site can be aggregated by the single provider)

path bloat is bad becuase?

I'm not sure I understand why path bloat is evil in and of itsxelf.



>However, it also doesn't fully satisfy the stated requirements, which
>included the requirement to protect against routing anomolies in a
>single autonomous system; the exact text describing the failure mode
>is:
>
>    o  Service provider failure, such as a backbone-wide IGP failure, and
>
>It might be worthwhile spelling this out in the draft, I guess.


The multi-homing market has already figured that out, I'd gently suggest.

   Geoff