Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Iljitsch;

> > > I figured the whole geographical aggregation thing was a step in the
> > > right direction...
> 
> > A problem is that such geographical aggregation can not properly
> > handle multiple links between regions maintained by multiple entities.
> 
> Regions aren't "maintained" by "entities".

Oops, I mean links are maintained by entities.

But, regions not maintained by a entity will naturally be partitioned
into smaller regions, which makes the routing table explode.

> > Another problem is that it is helpless for a partitioned geographical
> > area.
> 
> You can deaggregate. But automatic deaggregation is dangerous, so yes,
> partitioning is bad. This means you must define your regions in such a
> way that it is very unlikely that they will be partitioned internally,
> from the rest of the network or from peers in the region. This makes it
> hard to arrive at very small regions which in turn sets a practical
> limit on the scalability of geographical aggregation. In theory, it can
> scale to 1G multihomers. In practice, it won't be much fun anymore
> beyond 25 - 100M.

In theory and practice, it can scale to 100K.

							Masataka Ohta