RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

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

On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Michel Py wrote:

> Christian,
> 
> > Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> > maybe i got this all wrong, but...
> 
> You got it right. Let's keep something in mind: the kind of traffic
> engineering we are talking about is egress: you have a big honkin'
> server farm serving a boatload of customers wherever. The bulk of the
> traffic is return traffic, let's say http traffic.
> 
> Here's the scenario: the home/soho host that is multihomed with cable
> and dsl makes a choice on which of its own addresses (the cable one, or
> the dsl one) to use. This choice will dictate on which pipe the return
> traffic from the web server to the requesting host goes.
> 
> This is what we really are talking about here: Joe-six-pack's PC thinks
> the ping to the cable default gateway is better than the ping to the dsl
> default gateway and chooses its own source address to be the cable's
> one.
> 
> And this, gentlemen, is *not* what I call traffic engineering.

And precisely the reason why I am thinking of using the flow label to collect
RTT information for each path.  The traffic engineering decisions should be
based on something a little more reaslistic thatn the size fo the various liks
or local routing policies.

Frankly I have experienced some very serious traffic engineering problems using
regular BGP with a mix of different media and suppliers. Try as I might I just
could not direct incoming traffic the way I wanted it.

There is not going to be any easy solution as to who controls traffic flow
policies.  There will always be conflicts between the sender, the receiver and
the people in between.

> 
> Michel.
> 
> 
> 

Peter

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