RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Greg Maxwell wrote:
>
> > I've still yet to see an idea here that provided complete multihoming
> > (i.e. ones that won't get filtered to uselessness) without either breaking
> > aggregation and exploding the DFZ or making transport level changes..
>
> I think http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-geo-aggr-00.txt
> (name may change as I submit the draft) or "Geographical Aggregation to
> Support Multihoming in IPv6" fits the bill. Sure, there are many reasons
> not to like this, but so far I haven't heard any reasons why it wouldn't
> _work_. As it provides relief almost immediately without any pain (that
> comes later...), I can't see why this (or rather, an address allocation
> mechanism supporting it) shouldn't be implemented, unless someone can
> present _very_ convincing arguments why all of this is evil.

We're still in the game of having a cost set onto the outsiders.. sure,
now we've flattened the nonlinearity of price (hardware to contain a
million routes is more complex then a group of 100k routers with a similar
totally routing ability).

Is this really about the limits of top end scaling?
I always considered it to be about making routing more O(1)ish with
respect to multihomed networks you don't have a bussiness relationship
then O(n*mumble)..

The multinational geospacial distribution is a non-issue imho.. there is
too much clustering.. In places where multihoming load will matter.. thats
where the majority of the networks are....  I think it's reasonable to say
that if a router can handle X routes (i.e. all of the US, all of asia, or
all of europe) that asking it to handle 4X routes is not a big deal.

I don't believe that it is reasonable to ask providers to zone their
networks any smaller then continents.