RE: Consensus check

["marcelo bagnulo" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Fully agree with Tony´s opinion.

Michael, do you consider that exchange based multi-homing provides a good
solution for your needs?

I mean, the main objection that i have heard is that providers would have to
carry packets for non customers, but in your case (if i understand the
scenario correctly) it seems like a cooperative environement, so i would say
that this is acceptable, rigth?

Besides, i do not know if there is much experience in this type of
aggregation, and AFAIK, the only documentation available describing this is
RFC 2374.
I think that it would be interesting to gain experience an document how this
work in a production environement, like yours. I also know that Eurosix
people are working on this, but i do not have any further info.

regards, marcelo

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Tony Li [mailto:Tony.Li@procket.com]
> Enviado el: martes, 26 de noviembre de 2002 9:59
> Para: Michael H. Lambert; marcelo bagnulo
> CC: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: 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        |
> |   +-----------------------------------------------------------
> |   ------------+
> |
> |
>