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

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

Tony,

> Tony Hain wrote:
> I don't expect to solve it, but if we are talking about a
> system to distribute mapping tables to align with current
> topology at the ingress and restore the original values at
> the egress, we should make sure the process does not make
> it easy to quietly influence which provider carries the
> traffic. The obvious method to prevent this would be for
> the site being mapped to sign its preferences, but that
> brings along its own operational and scaling issues. 

In other words, let's say that when the two CPE routers negotiate the
best path and use, say, RTT, your concern is that the carrier might try
to slam by traffic-shapping so RTT has high priority, thus making its
own link more appealing to the decision process. And this would be a lot
more difficult to detect than someone that prepends or manipulates the
AS-PATH.

Did I get this part right?

Would you have these concerns if the choice among the multiple addresses
was based on the AS-PATH instead of some glorified RTT thing?

Michel.