North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

  • From: John Reilly
  • Date: Sun Oct 16 13:59:44 2005

Apologies for the reply to self, but my example was wrong so let me

On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 15:26 +0100, John Reilly wrote:
> e.g. 
> Say there is a host a::1 and my server has 3 IP addresses b::1, c::1 and
> d::1, via service providers B, C and D.
> As it stands, obviously a::1 can talk directly to the server using any
> of the addresses.  Now, say I want to multi-home.  Obviously in the
> past, I would have gotten my own prefix, say e:: and ASN and announced
> it.  

Same scenario.

> But now with shim6, I could use e::1 as the identifier for my host
> and use b::1, c::1 and d::1 as the locators.

Sorry, I was wrong here in my choice of e::1 as a host identifier
(ULID).  So, in my scenario above, I probably already had an AAAA for
each of b::1, c::1 and d::1 - I don't change this at all.  Assuming I
shim6 enable my server and host a::1 also supports shim6 if the path
from a::1 to b::1 goes down, a::1 can still maintain its connection to
the server by changing its locator from b::1 to c::1. 

> How are there traffic engineering problems when at the end of the day
> the packets will still be routed in the same way?  Or am I missing some
> crucial point?

The scenario is slightly different, but the end effect is that packets
are still routed the same as they are today, so I'm not sure what the
traffic engineering issues are.