Re: Regionally aggregatable address space for multihoming

[Joe Abley <jabley-ietf@automagic.org>]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 01:47:43PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001, Tony Li wrote:
> 
> > We decided a long time ago, for better or for worse, that we were not going
> > to introduce a new routing architecture with IPv6.  We need a multihoming
> > solution that at the very least halts the global routing table explosion.
> > If we can't find one, then we have a bigger problem to be sure, but let's
> > focus on trying to converge on something.
> 
> Let's see if we can agree on the problem:
> 
> The large number of multihomed network is responsible for growth of the
> routing table, which we don't want because:

Is it just multi-homing that is at the source of the issue? What
about the prefix-based inter-AS traffic engineering that Geoff
alluded to in Minneapolis?

What I mean is: suppose the multi-homing problem could be solved
such that the the pervasiveness of multi-homing had no impact on
the amount of state held in the DFZ. Would there still be a state
problem to solve?

To what extent can we deduce the problems that edge sites are
trying to solve?

The analysis I have seen to date tries to make deductions from
snapshots of the state in the DFZ, as viewed from various
different angles. It occurs to me that there is a limited toolbox
available for edge sites to accomplish a number of things. Being
able to hear someone hammering in the distance doesn't tell you
what they are trying to build :)


Joe