Re: Provider Independent addressing usage

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> > > I think one of the goals is that inter-region providers, or "upper layers"
> > > in general, don't have to know all the specific routes.
>
> Er, that is the goal of all route aggregation techniques and is the thing that
> multihoming makes very hard. It's the governing clause for every single
> thing that multi6 discusses. PI is one of the oldest ideas around to satisfy this
> goal and the question is still the same as always: is the deployment of all the
> necessary IX's a realistic expectation?

No; it's unrealistic to believe people start forming IX's just to appease
one multihoming solution..

> I think you'll find this goes back at least to a draft by Bill Simpson about 5
> years ago, and I still haven't seen a convincing argument why all those IX's will
> spring into existence.

.. But luckily all the IX's aren't required.  As long as operators in a
region are satisfied with carrying full /48 routes to every site in each
region, there are not that many problems.

When you get to the 10,000th PI site in a region, I'm sure more exchanging
will be considered if it hasn't been by then..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords