[82211] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andre Oppermann)
Fri Jul 8 18:52:09 2005
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:52:35 +0200
From: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list@nrg4u.com>
To: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20050708221620.GB4249@srv01.cluenet.de>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:08:08AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
>>On the other hand a large DFZ routing table would simply dampen its
>>growth by itself. If it gets to costly to multihome because of the
>>hardware requirements only few would be able to so. Ergo we have a
>>negative feedback system here keeping itself in check. Case solved
>>and closed.
>
> Multihomed end sites usually get away with receiving only default route
> or some partial routes from their upstreams. So technically you can
> BGP multihome with Cisco 1600 or even smaller easily (dunno where BGP
> support is starting to become available).
Technically yes, practically no. At least not for the purposes people
normally want to multihome.
--
Andre
