Re: Consensus check

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

Yes, Euro6IX is working on this, and Jordi can provide the info.

Tim

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 07:49:05PM +0100, marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> 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        |
> > |   +-----------------------------------------------------------
> > |   ------------+
> > |
> > |
> >
>