North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
Greg, > On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > > At 08:37 03/04/01, Greg Maxwell wrote: > > >Replace the internet with a highly aggregated IPv6 network > > >which uses transport level multihoming and you gain a factor > > >of 1000 improvement at core routers (and 100,000x further > > >from the core where you no longer need to be default-free) > > >and still have the oppturnity for a further 5x by going > > >to a state-of-the-art CPU (providing that your cpu speed > > >reasoning is valid). > > > > Precisely which "highly aggregated IPv6 network > > which uses transport level multihoming" is one talking about ? > > What's the RFC on this ? > > It's possible to 'solve' these problems in the future: > Forbid IP level multihoming for IPv6 which crosses aggregation boundaries. > I.e. absolutly no multihoming that inflates more then your providers > routing tabling, connect to whoever you want, but no AS should emit a > route for any other AS without aggregating it into their own space without > a special agreement of limited scope (i.e. not globally!) Who is going to "forbid" this ? And who is going to enforce this ? > > AFAIK, IPv6 multihoming is identical to IPv4 multihoming, > > with all the same adverse implications on the default-free routing > > table -- hence the creation of an IETF MULTI6 WG to try > > to change this. If I've missed some recent advance in the > > IETF specifications, please share the details (preferably citing > > RFC and page number :-) with the rest of us. > > IPv6 multihoming *is* the same. > > What I argue is that: Routers are the wrong place to do multihoming for > anything but Tier-1 connectivity. Multihoming belongs in the end node. > > SCTP (2960) is a transport level protcol which offers what amounts to a > superset of TCP. One of it's features is multihoming (2960; section 6.4). > > With such a protcol it is possible to accomplish all of the realibility > benifits of IP multihoming while achieving much greater scalability, > flexibility, and performance. > > We need to stop looking at IP addresses as host-identifyers (thats what > DNS is for) and look at them as path-identifyers. Perhaphs. But (stating the facts) for now, both in IPv4 *and* in IPv6 IP addresses carry dual semantics - host-identifiers (aka end-point identifiers) *and* path-identifiers (aka locators). Yakov.
|