Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

El 12/08/2004, a las 2:16, Tony Li escribió:

> > 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.

Good point.

But this implies modifying IGPs, right?

regards, marcelo

>   The EGP is not impacted because each of the prefixes is out of the 
> respective SP's aggregate.
>
> Tony