RE: Fwd: Minutes / Notes

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> > However, I also think that one must apply some reason here.  For example,
> > if you have have tunnels from two access routers to two ISP's ("site exit
> > routers approach"), I don't think you have to care about connection
> > survivability that much.
> >
> > ISPs' networks don't crash every other day (if they do, change the ISPs;
> > we just can't design protocols to work around broken operational
> > practices: that's going to fail, no matter what).  Might happen a couple
> > of times during the year, at most, but I'm not convinced that's
> > necessarily a huge problem.
> 
> Do you think that this is an acceptable solution fo very small sites?
> I mean, suppose an scenario where very small site multihoming becomes very
> frequent, so the number of those sites is very high.
> site Exit router approach requires manual configuration of the tunnels by
> both ISPs, so do you think that isps will be willing to do this for very
> small sites?

I don't really think the "site-exit routers approach" scales for very 
small sites ("home networks").

But then again, my perception is that very small sites can easily live 
without connection surviability.  These aren't really mission-critical 
systems, systems where network downtime could cost e.g. 1000$ a minute.

The ability to start new connections using the other connectivity is 
probably good enough for most folks.

When one says "very small sites", you could count inside that a guy who
has a mobile terminal and has e.g. GPRS and WLAN interfaces (or something
else), a laptop, and wants to keep his connections open while he moves or
switches between the two.  Sounds like the Mobile IPv6 problem space to
me.

> An complementary approach would be to use some sort of tunnel broker so that
> the site itself could configure its own tunnels, so the isps operators do
> not have to deal with this, what do you think?

If something like this would be required, I would certainly guess that
there would be some mechanism for automation, be it using some DHCP prefix
delegation extension, or whatever.  However, I haven't really thought
about it, and I would really rather see that those very small sites don't
require any mechanisms which require anything other that very light-weight
infrastructure.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings