[85871] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elmar K. Bins)
Tue Oct 18 12:42:00 2005
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:41:20 +0200
From: "Elmar K. Bins" <elmi@4ever.de>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <0671BEBE-6B04-4C1E-893D-26BB4A359AED@virtualized.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
drc@virtualized.org (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).
Cheers,
Elmi.
--
"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
(PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>)
--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
