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)
[email protected] (David Conrad) wrote: > I'm suggesting not mucking with the packet format anymore. It might > be ugly, but it can be made to work until somebody comes up with > IPv7. Instead, since the locator/identifier split wasn't done in the > protocol, do the split in _operation_. It has been done a long time ago, IMHO. I wonder whether I am the only one seeing this, but we already have a (albeit routing-) locator (ASN) and an identifier (IP address), that are pretty much distinct and where the routing locator is not used inside the "local" network, but only outside. There's your edge/core boundary. Every multi-homer will be needing their own ASN, so that's what clutters up your routing tables. It's economy there. Btw, a lot of ASNs advertise one network only. People surely think multihoming is important to them (and I cannot blame them for that). Hierarchical routing is one possible solution, with a lot of drawbacks and problems. Forget about geographic hierarchies; there's always people who do not peer. Visibility radius limitation is another (I cannot believe the idea is new, I only don't know what it's called). Cheers, Elmi. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <[email protected]>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
|