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

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

Tony,

>>> [was originally "slamming" turned to manipulating the
>>> ASPATH or similar techniques to bend the customer's
>>> traffic to flow (or not) to a specific ISP]

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> 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?

> 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. 

Could you develop this a little bit?

The way I was seing this issue is that the "metric" or whatever one
calls the number that will make the choice of the host should to be
stealthy modifiable by the transit providers. In other words, if that
metric was based on RTT, transit providers could alter the RTT of
protocol datagrams without much detection, when if the metric was the
ASPATH this is much easier to detect.

Michel.