North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Tony Li
  • Date: Sun Oct 16 02:37:44 2005

I don't want to speak for Daniel, nor other operators really, but a
solution that doesn't allow an operator to traffic engineer internally or
externally is just not workable. For the same reasons quoted in your other
messages to me: "Increased reliance on the Internet"

There's nothing in any multi-prefix multihoming solution that prevents an operator from internal or external traffic engineering. There just isn't a single explicit prefix to manipulate. If, within any given routing domain, you choose to carry a longer prefix and manipulate it to whatever extent your vendor's BGP permits, you and your consenting adult peers are free to do so. Do not, however, expect the rest of us to carry your traffic engineering prefixes. We are not interested.

agreed, but it doesn't seem that, until recently atleast, there was much
operator participation. Hopefully that's changing for the better :)

Hopefully, that will reach a point where the operators show up and participate at IETF, rather than the IETF coming to NANOG.