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

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Iljitsch,
You raise a point here that I think gets lost in the mapping proposals. 
'As far as your own hosts, the DNS and remote hosts are concerned, hosts
in your network have a single address.' 
If the upper 48 bits are constant in DNS, but continually changing in
the routing system, there needs to be a way to pass the possible set of
topologically appropriate replacement values between the CPE routers.
Since this protocol would inherently have to be run between
organizations that have no trust relationship, how that be deployable?
If it were run between the PE routers, trust is managable to a point,
but what would prevent something like the POTS practice of slamming?

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:34 AM
> To: Craig A. Huegen
> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: PI/metro/geo [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming 
> development]
> 
> 
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Craig A. Huegen wrote:
> 
> > The point that Tony H. is trying to make (I think, correct 
> me if I'm 
> > wrong here) is that the multi-PA solution makes life very easy for 
> > ISP's while throwing all of the operational issues of 
> supporting such 
> > a solution on the end-sites.
> 
> Craig, I've been looking at your messages to this list from 
> the past week or so to see what exactly your position on 
> identifier/locator solutions are, but I've been unable to 
> distill anything definitive. So lat me ask you if a solution 
> with the following properties is acceptable to you:
> 
> As far as your own hosts, the DNS and remote hosts are 
> concerned, hosts in your network have a single address. 
> However, at the edges of your network you need boxes that do 
> some address magic so your packets get to pass through 
> backbone networks as if you were using regular PA. Traffic 
> engineering is still possible as before, or can be done with 
> finer granularity, at or very close to the edges but requires 
> more effort (ie extra hardware, or more processing on 
> existing hardware) to do.
> 
> You have a choice between being reachable without any 
> multihoming benefits for people who do not implement the new 
> scheme, but you have to use PA addresses, or you can use PI 
> but no interoperation with hosts that don't implement the new 
> multihoming solution(s) or sit behind a box that handles this 
> for them.
> 
> I'm not saying this is exactly what a solution will look like 
> (hopefully we can improve on this) but I'm pretty confident a 
> more advanced multi-address solution can meet the above description.
> 
> Iljitsch
> 
>