[86059] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andre Oppermann)
Fri Oct 21 12:44:18 2005
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:43:44 +0200
From: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list@nrg4u.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20051021133401.C590B398C5@equinox.DOMINO.ORG>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Neil J. McRae wrote:
>>Considering that most people who are in favor of multihoming
>>for ipv6 believe that there is customer demand for it, the
>>market forces would decide this one.
>
> We have nobody but ourselves to blame for this. If we all ran
> networks that worked as well as our customers demand and didn't have
> our petty peering squables every full moon, the market wouldn't
> feel the need to have to dual home.
There is not only the multihoming issue but also the PI address issue.
Even if any ISP would run his network very competently and there
were no outages we would face the ISP switching issue. Again we
would end up with either PI addresses announced by the ISP or BGP
by the customer. With either the DFZ continues to grow. There is
just no way around it.
--
Andre
