Re: delayed multihoming/mobility set-up

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> [...]
>> If we assume that we are using BGP for the EGP routing updates, we 
>> have
>> the Ahuja/Labovitz route cancellation effect. If I remember correctly,
>> their research showed that 40% of re-routing takes 2-4 minutes (I am
>> taking this out of my head). This would IMHO give the reference of how
>> long a "rehoming event" could take. Anything lower than that is a 
>> bonus
>> :-)
>
> Uhh, could you clarify how this relates to this subject?  I think I 
> see a
> few ways to tie these together, but I'm not sure what your point is..

( I was a bit fast there, to much mail to read and catch up with)

Well the point I was after was your discussion on when a connected 
session should expect connection survivability. In todays IPv4/IPv6 
internet, a connection passing over a EGP boundary (and I guess in 
worst case even inside ASes) will have to take the route cancellation 
in effect. This means that you will always have to worry about this. So 
the last you said was :

> Note that in low-mobility or site multihoming scenarios you don't
> expect
> the the multihoming to be required *immediately*; the risk increases in
> proportion to the time.

And I was pointing out that you can't expect it to be immediate in the 
case above.

Does this make any more sense? :-)

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP7k2hKarNKXTPFCVEQIDrwCg/VOKG/o1ImSpCBovIdWlceEKziEAoJib
8JQ1GjmAfSB1OmqSU+1XPyrK
=eX/p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----