Re: A new spin on multihoming: multihoming classes.

[Michel Py <py_michel@yahoo.com>]

Ramki-

--- Ramakrishna Gummadi <ramki@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>> I may be wrong, but isn't this number from rfc2374?
>> To quote from section 4.0:
>> The size of the Top-Level Aggregation Identifier
>> is 13 bits.  This allows for 8,192 TLA ID's. This
>> size was chosen to insure that the default-free
>> routing table in top level routers in the Internet
>> is kept within the limits, with a reasonable margin
>> of the current routing technology.  The margin is
>> important because default-free routers will also
>> carry a significant number of longer (i.e., more-
>> specific) prefixes for optimizing paths internal
>> to a TLA and between TLAs.

This is pretty much what I say in section 5.5.2 of
the -01 draft of MHTP:
(
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/draft-py-multi6-mhtp-01.txt
)

5.5.2. Simplified routing on high-bandwidth routers: 
Since backbone routers would no longer need to handle 
multihomed traffic, the IPv6 DFZ could be summarized
in the 
spirit that has guided its inception. To take the 
summarization to an unrealistically absurd level, the
IPv6 
backbone could be summarized at the /16 boundary, and
the 
6bone could be summarized at the /28 boundary without 
compromising the multihoming capabilities of MHTP.

I other words: Although the IPv6 DFZ could
THEORATICALLY
be summarized to the /16 boundary (which effectively
be
a 8k routig table when all 8192 TLAs have been
assigned)
the reality is that more specific prefixes are more
than
likely to be seen there.

Michel.


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