[88753] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Thu Feb 16 12:06:26 2006
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602151907180.11208@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:05:35 -0500
To: Edward B.DREGER <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> The biggest problem is when customer's link to provider A goes down
> and
> inbound traffic must flow through provider B. This necessitates some
> sort of path between A and B where more-specifics can flow.
Are most of the multihomers REALLY a one router shop (implied by your
renumbering is easy comment) - although shim6 could help there I guess.
You've also eliminated any possibility of the end multihomed site
doing any ingress traffic engineering. I suppose they can do egress
which is better than shim6 allows... but in today's world where I get
a completely different price for transit than my neighbor - this plan
is going to screw some the multihomed sites financially.
