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: Elmar K. Bins
  • Date: Tue Oct 18 12:42:58 2005

[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).



"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
                          (PLemken, <[email protected]>)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---