Re: yesterday

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Iljitsch;

> I once again want to object to the idea of putting a full routing table 
> in each host, as suggested by Masataka Ohta. I see a lot of practical 
> problems with this,

I'm afraid you completely misunderstand the routng architecture.

> I'm almost certain we need to create more or less a 
> completely new protocol for this to work as the only protocol that has 
> the right information is BGP but BGP needs manual configuration and 
> that is NOT something you want to do for each host. Then there is the 

Hugh? Read the draft. It says:

   Note that end to end multihoming works with the separation between
   inter domain BGP and intra domain routing protocols, if BGP routers,
   based on local policy of the domain, assign external routes
   preference values (metric) of intra domain routing protocols.

> unnecessary resource consumption (IPv4 table using Zebra costs at least 
> 60 MB, a third of which is kernel memory wich can't be swapped out). 

Are you saying v6 routing table should bloat like that of v4 that
multi6 should disband?

> But the more fundamental problem is that all the really good stuff is 
> aggregated away in the global routing table,

The goal of multi6 goal is to aggregate the global routing table.

A good news is that there is no good stuff to be lost.

> so the info you can derive 
> from that is by far inferior to what you can get from talking to the 
> other side. I don't mean _asking_ the other side, I mean doing 
> measurements on the packets going back and forth, the same way TCP does 
> to arrive at good round trip times.

As I said yesterday TCP is not IP. The Internet is connectionless.

Moreover, even TCP needs initial guess which address to use.

						Masataka Ohta