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

Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts




El 11/08/2004, a las 19:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:

Hi Eric,

On 11-aug-04, at 18:13, Fleischman, Eric wrote:

Newbie question: Assuming a multihomed environment with N ISPs supporting a corporate network of 2K+ routers and 200K+ computers. Is multi6 proposing that the interfaces of the routers and computers each have N different global addresses, one set for each of the N ISPs?

At this time, multi6 isn't exactly proposing anything. But yes, pretty much everything that's under discussion right now assumes this.


If so, has multi6 considered the impact of this approach to IGP and EGP performance? If so, what was the consensus conclusion to that evaluation?

There hasn't been an evaluation.

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.



Well, even if you do a per host locator selection you can still manage policy in a centralized fashion, if we define proper mechanisms to perform policy distribution, for instance a dhcp option for distributing RFC3484 policy table or something similar. However, i don't know how you can enforce policy in a centralized manner when locator selection is performed by the end hosts.

anyway, i agree that proxys are attractive, especially for supporting advanced features like session survivability in legacy hosts

regards, marcelo