Re: A new spin on multihoming: multihoming classes.

[Michel Py <py_michel@yahoo.com>]

Sean,

Sean Doran wrote:
>> Trying to restrict our scope to just some types of
sites
>> will lead into quasi-legalistic arguing about what
a site
>> is and whether a small server farm or a soho is
really
>> a site in the sense of e.g. 2.5.4 of 
>> draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-06.txt.

I was not trying to restrict the scope of the
workgroup but
try to describe the problem so everyone has the same
reading
on it. For what I have read here for the last three
days, the
two cans of worms that Ilsitch and I have opened did
not leave
people indifferent.

>> In other words, feel free to propose solutions
which are
>> optimized for certain types of sites, as long as
such
>> solutions do not exclude (or refuse to interoperate
with)
>> either a more general (set of) solution(s) or
different
>> specific solutions for different types of
multihomed sites.

That makes my point: Until the perfect and universal
multihoming
solution is invented, this workgroup is the best place
to ensure
that all classes of multihoming not only can coexist
but are
aware of each other.

I think that everyone would benefit from guidelines in
the
requirements draft such as:
- There are roughly 3 classes of multihoming:
entreprise, user
and mobile (with some flexible definitions). If your
draft is geared
to only one or two of these, please make it clear in
the text.

BTW, when do we see a requirement draft?

>> Personally, I prefer more general solutions since
assumptions
>> about the traffic profiles and even protocols that
any given
>> entity (particularly ones that are not huge
aggregators of traffic) 
>> tend to be surprisingly short lived.

So do I, when they exist.

>> Incidentally, I also (personally) prefer solutions
which DO NOT
>> require the use of BGP.

I have heard many times that the only multihoming
solution some
people would accept is BGP-based and preferably a slow
evolution
over the IPv4 deal.

>> 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).

My IPv6 home network is kinda-multihomed (I have two
blocks but no
multihoming solution, sigh) to two different 6bone
pTLAs
using a private ASN and I don't see anything wrong
with that as long
as the pTLAs do not advertise my ASN but theirs. In
the case of
MHTP, that would not be a problem at all.

>> If all sites are to have some sort of
site-identifier,

We don't all wear the same shoes because we don't all
have the
same feet and I think that there is nothing wrong with
some sites
using their ASN as the site-identifier and some other
sites using
some other mechanism, because their multihoming
requirements are
not the same.

Michel.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com