RE: PI/metro/geo [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development]

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Tony Li wrote:

> |   I don't mean that these people shouldn't have backups. What
> |   I mean is that injecting a globally visible route into the
> |   infrastructure 100% of
> |   the time to avoid sub-optimal, but otherwise functional
> |   routing 1% of the time isn't a good use of scarce resources.

> We might well be in violent agreement.

Hey, violence never solves anything.

> Are you suggesting that we disallow the globally visible route?

In short: yes, that is what my provider-internal aggregation draft
suggests. However, since aggregation happens within individual ISP
networks they all get to choose whether they want to aggregate or not.
This uses regular BGP. A longer-term solution may be able to improve on
this, although I doubt having a few hundred million globally visible
routes will work well even with much smarter protocols.

> Or that we disallow them from making multiple connections?

No, that way it would be hard to multihome... But in essence I'm saying
that if they have multiple connections in far apart locations they can
only use the connection in location B to back up location A and vice
versa, and not load balance incoming traffic to A over both A and B. For
that, they'll have to have two connections close to location A and two
connections close to location B.