On 13-Apr-2006, at 20:05, Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net) wrote:
2. Are people concerned with the long term implacations of de- aggrgegationfor multi-homing, and if so, then should we pursue a protocol solutionthat has full support for TE in an effort to replace de- aggrgegation as a solution and halt (or possibly reverse) the growth of the routing table?
The general "but we need TE" noise in response to descriptions of the shim6 effort has been from ISPs and multi-homed enterprises. ISPs have always been able to get PI space. Under this proposed ARIN policy, multi-homed LIRs would also be able to get PI space, and as you point out, the chances are that multi-homed non-LIRs would see reduced resistance to advertising their PA /48s far and wide.
The small sites which cannot multi-home today in the v4 Internet (e.g. residential users, small offices, mobile users) have no expectation of TE, and they have no IT department who wants to stamp a policy on the way they shift packets. Their upstream networks have no real expectation of being able to do TE on behalf of those users either, beyond whatever routine exercises they perform in response to traffic which is already directed by the host (e.g. opportunistic peer-to-peer traffic).
If this last category is to be the remaining constituency for a multi- homing solution, and if shim6 design continues and there is deployment, then I would say the one benefit of the ARIN policy from the point of view of designers in this working group is that the nebulous and ill-defined requirement for TE can finally be thrown away :-)
Joe