[86124] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What is multihoming was (design of a real routing v. endpoint
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Mon Oct 24 05:36:30 2005
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <31D73BCDE467BCD716C9773E@odpwrbook.hq.netli.lan>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:35:53 +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--=-mRaQQWD++FdzknXpzjMH
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 02:24 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
<SNIP>
> 3. Most multihoming today is done using BGP, but, many other
> solutions exist with various tradeoffs. In V6, there is
> currently only one known (BGP) and one proposed, but,
> unimplemented (Shim6) solution under active consideration
> by IETF. (this may be untrue, but, it seems to be the
> common perception even if not reality).
As for "multihoming" in the sense that one wants redundancy, getting two
uplinks to the same ISP, or what I have done a couple of times already,
multiple tunnels between 2 sites (eg 2 local + 2 remote) and running
BGP/OSPF/RIP/VRRP/whatever using (private) ASN's and just providing a
default to the upstream network and them announcing their /48 works
perfectly fine.
The multihoming that people here seem to want though is the Provider
Independent one, and that sort of automatically implies some routing
method: read BGP.
Greets,
Jeroen
--=-mRaQQWD++FdzknXpzjMH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
iD8DBQBDXKr5KaooUjM+fCMRAqgyAKCYj07kXvtJPgG9+lAYvcPm0ECZMACeObg6
m9bak9BI3NF069YSEdb9Jsg=
=qQ/o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-mRaQQWD++FdzknXpzjMH--
