Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

On Jul 1, 2005, at 4:03 AM, Mark Smith wrote:

> (2) Running a fully fledged routing protocol on the end-node is
> relatively heavy handed for what is being achieved. I'd think a
> simple, light-weight announcement style availability protocol for the
> node's address, that is part of IPv6 itself, would be useful.

It was standard practice on DECNET, XNS, and Novell equipment; Novell 
did it twice, once for the routes and once for the services that the 
servers offered. If you have only one interface, as you say it didn't 
accomplish much. But if you have multiple interfaces on a server, it 
provides something akin to what multihoming does for a network. As you 
say, it is expensive in address count to put a /64 on a host, though.

In general, if you're interested in routing scaling, using the tools 
that make it scale are a good thing. Host routes are the exception, I 
should think, not the rule.