Re: An idea: GxSE

[RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>]

At 12:36 25/06/01, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

>Unless I overlook something there are basically four ideas to keep the growth of the routing table as a result from multihoming to a minimum:
>
>1. NAT and other address rewriting ideas. Pro: works today. Con: NAT box is
>   a single point of failure, sessions don't survive address change.

Also Con:
        ESP/AH don't work through the NAT.
        Transparency is visibly below desired levels.

>3. Geo addressing. Pro: no (new) software necessary, works in IPv4. Con:
>   routing table effect may be as little as one order of magnitude.

        It isn't clear to me that this works in either IPv4 or IPv6.

        If the IDR scaling improvements are not significant, 
it isn't a sufficient improvement (IMHO).

>4. More efficient routing information encoding (such as bitmaps). Pro: same
>   hardware can accomodate several orders of magnitude larger routing table.
>   Con: many things: new protocol versions, new software, etc.

        If this were sufficient by itself, then at least some of the
vocal routing folks here would not be as vocal as they are being,
IMHO.

Ran