Re: A new spin on multihoming: multihoming classes.

[Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>]

I have no desire to change existing BGP system - it will be needed to keep the
aggregated direct routing framework in place.  The key point I was trying to
make was decoupling of an alternative BGP cache from the routing
infrastructure.

From my reading of 

  http://www.telstra.net/gih/papers/ietf50-bgp.pdf

it becomes clear that multihoming is already a major degradation issue for the
Ipv4 network based on current BGP models.  I especially note the growth in the
longer prefixes (/24).


On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Ramakrishna Gummadi wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> 
> > An idea springs to mind - why not have an alternative system based on BGP
> > *independent* of the routing system from which reachability information can be
> > gathered.  Such a BGP system would need to be extended so that whole DFZ would
> > not need to be kept in the BGP server, but rather the localized routing needs
> > of the site instead, much in the same way that a DNS server only keeps the
> > localized name mapping that it requires for the sites current connections.
> 
> My draft
> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ramki-multi6-nlmp-00.txt),
> together with rfc2660, takes a somewhat similar approach by marking unusable
> prefixes with a special BGP attribute and both localizing and
> aggregating this unreachability information in BGP. It would be great if
> you can tell me what you think of it.
> 
> thanks,
> ramki
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Peter R. Tattam                            peter@trumpet.com
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210