Re: scope of solution..

[Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>]

Bora,

I think 

/jim

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Bora Akyol wrote:

> 
> I was aware of both of these arguments.
> 
> The routers today are not nearly as close to exploding due to prefix/path
> bloat as the trade rags will have you believe.
> 
> By shifting the load of multi-homing to hosts rather that the routers and
> the network, we are essentially shifting the most of the load to the
> hosts. One can argue that this is a more scalable approach (I can already
> ifconfig more than one IP address on my box on one interface). But I
> cringe when I hear of "failure" notifications sent around the network all
> the way to the hosts so that they can switch the IP addresses that they
> use or auto-configure themselves with a new address.
> 
> What about services such as sendmail, http, ircd etc that depend on the IP
> address (and reverse resolution). Does it mean that I have to restart my
> servers everytime the IP address gets reconfigured.
> 
> How does DNS work in such a scenario?
> 
> How does the network decide where (and whom) to send the failure
> notifications?
> 
> Coming back to my initial statement, I have seen routers handle upwards of
> 500,000 prefixes with rich PATH attributes already, and as
> implementations get more efficient (and distributed) I believe BGP can be
> made to scale (depending on the router hw that you choose to buy).
> 
> Hence, the WG should consider both sides of the story.
> 
> Bora
> 
> 
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Daniel Senie wrote:
> 
> > Bora Akyol wrote:
> > >
> > > Why is it a good idea to involve the hosts in a site as part of the
> > > multi-homing solution?
> > >
> >
> > If you've got two blocks of addresses, from two separate upstreams, and
> > one link croaks, you'd either need the hosts (end stations) to be able
> > to change which source address they're using, or you have to do
> > multi-homing the way we presently do on IPv4 (and on IPv6 presently),
> > that being to have the multi-homing done by announcing address space
> > into the core.
> >
> > > If this WG decides to involve the hosts as part of the multi-homing for
> > > IPv6, to what extent will they be involved.
> > >
> > > My own inclination is to support multi-homing at the router level and do
> > > not require anything other than a basic default route for most hosts.
> >
> > The issue is that argument ties to either the present style of
> > multihoming, or a requirement to use NAT in the router to make things
> > continue to work in the event of an outage. Since the NAT case is
> > guaranteed to blow up many applications, that's not real practical. The
> > general claim is that our present method of multihoming isn't scaling.
> > This leads to the question of doing something at the host level. It's
> > essentially moving what's presently done in some NAT-box-multihoming
> > products into the host.
> >
> > >
> > > Bora
> > >
> > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> > >
> > > > one of Margaret Wasserman's notes talked about the solution coming
> > > > from either "the routing system" or "the hosts".
> > > >
> > > > Since we're talking about *site* multihoming, there are (at least)
> > > > three scopes here:
> > > >
> > > >  - the routing systems of the ISP's outside the site
> > > >
> > > >  - the routing system within the site
> > > >
> > > >  - the hosts within the site.
> > > >
> > > > A scalable multihoming solution could involve some form of
> > > > coordination between the site's routers and the site's hosts..
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Daniel Senie                                        dts@senie.com
> > Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com
> >
> 
>