[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Consensus check
Michael,
We have no assurances that we will discover or (even less
likely) agree to a sane architecture. And if we do, it is
likely that we would end up asking everyone for changes, not
just you.
In addition, the existance of the GigaPOP seems to be a
perfect abstraction boundary, so it will provide good
aggregation.
Note that I know of no one who has an objection to using
geographic aggregation when the aggregation coincides with
the topological aggregation as well. ;-)
So, I'd just do it.
Good luck,
Tony
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Michael H. Lambert [mailto:lambert@psc.edu]
| Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 7:30 PM
| To: marcelo bagnulo
| Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
| Subject: RE: Consensus check
|
|
| Hi, Marcelo,
|
| > Wouldn?t this be the case of exchange based multi-homing
| solution? (as
| > described in RFC 2374)
|
| Yes, I think we could obtain a PA allocation as an LIR from
| ARIN. I have
| to admit I have philosophical objections to using our own
| address block--it
| does nothing to minimize the size of the DFZ routing table.
| Is it better
| to adopt the expedient solution now (using our own address
| block) rather
| than wait for the "correct" solution later (sane routing
| and address
| selection with multiple PA addresses on each interface)? I would
| appreciate discussion either way--if the community starts
| down this path it
| will be difficult to change. But a working solution is
| needed sooner
| rather than later.
|
| Michael
|
| +-----------------------------------------------------------
| ------------+
| | Michael H. Lambert, Network Engineer Phone: +1
| 412 268-4960 |
| | Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center FAX: +1
| 412 268-8200 |
| | 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
| lambert@psc.edu |
| +-----------------------------------------------------------
| ------------+
|
|