[41217] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: multi-homing fixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Hain)
Fri Aug 31 17:39:29 2001
Reply-To: <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
To: "Sean M. Doran" <smd@clock.org>, <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:38:31 -0700
Message-ID: <IEEOIFENFHDKFJFILDAHIEKKDAAA.alh-ietf@tndh.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20010831150428.2FCCDC7901@cesium.clock.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Sean M. Doran wrote:
> Let me take some of your text out of context and agree with it fully:
>=20
> [A permanently stable holes-in-CIDR-blocks environment exists]
> | Only if there is a limit on the number of ISPs. I don't think there=20
> | is such a [practical rather than absolute] limit
>=20
> The problem with metro-based addressing is that the statement
> above is equally true for it as for PA addressing.
>=20
Understanding the truth in that general statement,=20
I would like to know if anyone sees a significant
difference in the number of holes created by each=20
approach. Handwaving can go either way, so the=20
question is given real topologies and multi-homing
goals, is there enough difference in the number
of holes created to bias the approach?=20
Responses should go to multi6@ops.ietf.org
Tony
