[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Draft of updated WG charter

On 9-jan-04, at 23:48, vijay gill wrote:

Significant amount of users that are multihomed have a setup that
accepts defaults from two providers, and anounces their blocks to
both upstreams. They receive no more information than the fact
that their connection is up. No routing tables, no prefixes, just
a quadzero.

That's not very smart. 

Telling customers that they must spend several thousands of dollars
extra in capital so the IETF thinks they are smart, is not going to
win me much business.

If a customer of mine were to consider such a setup I would explain to them that this way, they're not protecting themselves against a large class of potential failures. Maybe two views of the full 130000 entry global routing table is too much, but certainly just two defaults is too little. There is middle ground here.

NAT in IPv6 is of course unacceptable. Firewalls also have the
potential to be harmful.


So far, it doesn't appear to have stopped promising local enterpises
from deploying large amounts of firewalls.


We must be on guard against this sort of thinking. Real world meets
powerpoints and wins. Every time.

Another form of dangerous thinking is that just because a lot of people buy a certain product that provides certain functionality in a certain way, we must automatically support this particular method of providing said functionality in the future. Getting rid of old stuff is just as important as implementing new stuff if we want to make progress.