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

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

Tony,

> Tony Hain wrote:
> 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?

I'm not sure I understand your question correctly. Slamming as I
understand it is make the customer switch to another (yours!) long
distance company in order to get the money.

We are talking about multihomed sites here, so a provider that wants to
slam would either:

a) Try to reduce the traffic on their customer's link by providing
routes that have crappy metrics (if the customers pays a flat fee).

b) Try to increase the traffic on their customer's link by providing
routes that have very good metrics, which will eventually push the
customer towards a bigger, more expensive pipe.

Both of these are practiced today with IPv4. I'm not saying it's a good
practice, and one better have a good explanation if caught, but it does
happen. Are we looking at a solution that *also* solves this problem?

Michel.