[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Architectural approaches to multi6

On donderdag, maa 27, 2003, at 23:15 Europe/Amsterdam, Dmitri Krioukov wrote:

After browsing through this thread I'd like
to ask the following question: how many people
on this list would agree that a scalable
*engineering* solution to the multihoming
problem can be based neither on routing as we
know it today nor on any future improved and
superior routing architecture
I wouldn't: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int- aggr-00.txt

There's also the current practice of announcing a more specific out of A's aggregate to B. Even if the more specific is filered so traffic ends up with A, if A and B peer it can still reach the destination over B.

Also, a somewhat related question: is handling
failures beyond the links between the multihomer
and its transit provider (such as failures of links
between providers and the rest of the world) a
requirement?

For some users: yes.


That it is not is an implicit assumption
of my first question. If it is (like it seemingly
follows from the requirement ID but not from Christian's
experiment), then a solution can only be routing-based,
and, hence (how many would agree?), it cannot be
scalable.
I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise. Adding a level of indirection (such as the identifier/locator separation) would handle this nicely.