Re: Full routes needed at sites? [Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?]

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

On Wednesday 15 October 2003 17:39, masataka ohta wrote:
[snipped]
> > On the other
> > hand, there are other possibilites which doesn't imply the need
> > of full routing. E. g, you could check connectivity with your upstream
> > provider and realise when that is broken to divert traffic to the
> > other exit router....
>
> What end users CAN NOT accept is complex configuration.


The idea might be as complex as you want to, as long as
the implementation makes it easy for end-users. I'm just 
giving ideas. You can think of it like this:

mh-router-shell (config)> ipv6 multihomed up

Do you think that's difficult for end-users ?


>
> A proposal to force end users some action is NO acceptable.
>

So it should be better to let the end-user deal with the full IPv6
routing table, I think he/she will have a lot of fun seeing a lot
of prefixes on the screen when he/she can not reach some host.
This is just a funny comment, cause I totally agree with you on this
point.


> With BGP configuration effort of an end user is variable and,
> if most end users can just use AS-path-len, it can be a default
> of most routers.

As Pekka told in a previous mail on this thread, I think 
that making a BGP solution for SOHO users seems
a bit overkilled. Therefore, I would like to see other possible
choices. We should also deploy other alternatives, so that 
end users could get what they think best fits them.

Besides, I would like to see what requirements do you need
to build up your solution. Have you come up with some of them ?
I think that one of the problems (problems = requirements for end-users)
of your solution is that you will have to have ASNs for every multihomed-user.
And I guess this is only the beginning.

I can not comment without further info. Will you make a requirements-draft 
so we can start making some comments on it ? 

> >>If you are not convinced, here is a reality check.
> >>
> >>How many of multihomed (non-transit) entities today are using the
> >>default-only approach?
> >
> > Good point,
>
> It is phychologically unacceptable for operator of a multhomed
> site that paid connection to some ISP will NEVER be used.

"Money for nothing" is not a good deal, that's clear.

Just I don't understand why you say "it will NEVER be used".
It's our duty to develop mechanisms in a proper way so things get to
be used, is not it ?


> > though I don't think the IPv4-way of doing multihomed things
> > should be the example to follow for IPv6-multihomed sites...
>
> which is what RIRs are doing.

Omg, I'm at least I'm on my last comment.... *wink*

I dunno if that's already been said, what should the RIRs be doing ?

-- 
JFRH