Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

[Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>]

> There is a feature that I'm very much in favor of that could help 
> here: the ability to implement a multihoming solution in middleboxes 
> or border routers. In such a scenario, there would be a set of 
> addresses for internal use in the site, and the proxy multihoming 
> devices add the multihoming capability somewhere close to the border 
> of the network. The good thing here is that there is no need to modify 
> each individual host to obtain multihoming benefits, and it's easier 
> to implement policy in a few central places rather than distributed 
> over all the hosts in the network.


Architecturally, this is the right thing to do.  However, it is an 
implicit validation of NAT, and if NAT's ok,
then why do we need v6 in the first place?

Ideally, in an Internet architecture that we don't have today, there 
would be N prefixes, one per ISP.  However, the host
portion of the locator would be a constant regardless of prefix.  The 
IGP need not know about the external prefixes, so there's
no issue there.  The EGP is not impacted because each of the prefixes 
is out of the respective SP's aggregate.

Tony