[36339] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg Maxwell)
Tue Apr 3 12:07:50 2001
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:00:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>
To: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
Cc: RJ Atkinson <rja@inet.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200104031527.IAA10749@red.juniper.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010403112837.11336M-100000@da1server>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> > It's possible to 'solve' these problems in the future:
> > Forbid IP level multihoming for IPv6 which crosses aggregation boundaries.
> > I.e. absolutly no multihoming that inflates more then your providers
> > routing tabling, connect to whoever you want, but no AS should emit a
> > route for any other AS without aggregating it into their own space without
> > a special agreement of limited scope (i.e. not globally!)
>
> Who is going to "forbid" this ? And who is going to enforce this ?
Ahem.
The same people who prevent the current global routing table from being
flooded by /25 - /30s.
> > We need to stop looking at IP addresses as host-identifyers (thats what
> > DNS is for) and look at them as path-identifyers.
>
> Perhaphs. But (stating the facts) for now, both in IPv4 *and* in
> IPv6 IP addresses carry dual semantics - host-identifiers (aka
> end-point identifiers) *and* path-identifiers (aka locators).
I though it was explicit with IPv6 that end-nodes are not-host
identifyers.
In the real world today, IPv6 addresses are certantly not
host-identifyers: Many hosts (including the one I'm typing on) have
multiple IP addresses, and sites have a farm of web serverers behind a
single IP address. We may pretend that a IP address means a host, but it
doesn't.
