Re: A new spin on multihoming: multihoming classes.

[Ramakrishna Gummadi <ramki@cs.berkeley.edu>]

Sean,
> Incidentally, I also (personally) prefer solutions which DO NOT require the
> use of BGP.  Operational complexity aside, lots of sites means
> lots of ASes, which do not aggregate away even as nicely as
> the prefixes they originate (and we do not want to juggle private-use ASes).
I don't think every site needs an AS number even though we use BGP.
For example, in my draft
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ramki-multi6-nlmp-00.txt), we
*don't* need a multihomed site to have an AS number. Only (multihomed)
ISPs are required to have an AS number.

> If all sites are to have some sort of site-identifier, these
> should be directly associated with the topological location
> part of an address, rather than indirectly as an indication
> of originator and a reannouncement-loop-prevention device in the
> rather crusty exterior routing protocol in use today.

In my draft, loop-prevention, etc., is detected by bgp routing attributes
associated with route withdrawals and not by AS numbers or other
site-specific identifiers.

thanks,
ramki