[141949] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mos)
Tue Jun 14 17:42:38 2011
From: Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=kcPBpLG4TEC1CUBB3c8-_4vtmQRKd7WmWfqirWscufw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:42:20 +0200
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Op 14 jun 2011, om 19:04 heeft Ray Soucy het volgende geschreven:
> My guess is within the next year we'll see something pop up that does =
this.
Ehm, It's already here, you searched google right?
I finished it 4 months ago. And a number of commercial platforms already =
support it. Although Owen doesn't like it much.
I really wish there was a more bomb proof "lite" version of the BGP =
protocol.
- One that has proper authentication not based on a single MD5.
- One that does not allow the client side to define the networks.
- That will only support default routes, it's easier if it can not carry =
the world.
I think a evolved version of ebgp multihop is workable, but you'd still =
need some lightweight form of hooking back into the BGP table.
Ideally, ISPs could deploy a number of these route "guides" that would =
inject the proper route into the real BGP table, but by then it is =
filtered and the ISP has proper control over what ends up in it. Some =
ISPs could mark this up as a luxury version.
Perhaps a form of PI bound to country (Exchange) would be a workable =
solution. So request a piece of "country PI" that is delegated =
explicitly to the roaming guide(s).
Regards,
Seth
