North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Paul Jakma
  • Date: Sun Oct 16 03:57:30 2005

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

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"
Well, people havn't been at all keen on solutions which would need fairly significant changes to how the operators do inter-AS routing (even if they would avoid shifting some aspects of routing to end-nodes).

Given this high-resistance (rightly, wrongly, doesn't matter) to big changes in the transit parts of the internet, the only place then to do it is at the edges: have leaf-sites^Wnodes be more far active in how their packets are routed (by making deliberate use of the current provider aligned allocation<->topology transit internet).

What kind of operator are you thinking of btw? End-node shouldn't bother operators of ISPs really (they'll only get the traffic that the end-node decided it wanted to send via them, which is exactly what you have today ;) ). It could bother operators of other kinds of sites though - but I'm hopeful though that the shim6 mechanisms will be malleable to site-multihoming, even if initially shim6 only concerns itself with end-hosts.

If the network isn't reliable due to suboptimal routing issues it can't
survive :(
Just cause one network is unreliable does not mean that all the networks the end-node is connected to are unreliable. The end-node can try figure out which work and which don't and route accordingly. That's the whole point of shim6 ;).

Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them.
-- Isaac Asimov