Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?

[Juan Rodriguez Hervella <jrh@it.uc3m.es>]

On Monday 13 October 2003 12:13, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On maandag, okt 13, 2003, at 11:27 Europe/Amsterdam, Juan Rodriguez
>
> Hervella wrote:
> >> Actually you do know such an enduser: me. I have two lines coming into
> >> my home and I run IPv6 over both of them. In fact the server that is
> >> colocated with one ISP is reachable (over IPv6) through the other ISP,
> >> my home network and the link to the colo ISP. (Do some traces for
> >> www.bgpexpert.com.)
> >
> > Then....What's the matter ? I didn't quite catch what you need.
> > to set up this topology. Do you need a higher block of IPv6 addresses ?
> > or it's that you need to manage your own routing ?
>
> There are two problems. The first is that I have no way to keep the
> source address and outgoing ISP consistent. Fortunately, the ISP I
> point my default to doesn't bother with any ingress filtering for IPv6.
> (Hm, I should try and see if they don't do it for v4 either.) Source
> address based routing would help some here, but it doesn't really fix
> the problem.

Hi again :)

About the first problem, I think that "source based routing" can help a lot.
You only have to read the source address of the packets and re-route
those that are not consistent with the prefix of the exit border router
they've been sent to.

>
> And of course when something bad happens my sessions break because
> those are tied to a single pair of source/dest addresses.

I completely agree with you on this problem.  
Is there any other workaround but putting
forward the id/loc separation model ?

PS: The subject line doesn't look like what we're discussing, should we
start a new thread ? I don't come up with a new one yet   ^--^

Thanks for your time!

-- 
JFRH