[97725] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 multihoming (Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Gibbard)
Fri Jun 29 18:18:42 2007
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Gibbard <scg@gibbard.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.62.0706291441260.2276@nyquist>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--0-1606588292-1183153930=:42478
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Nicol=E1s Antoniello wrote:
> To use AS path prepend when you advertise just one prefix does not solve
> the problem...in this case it actually make it worth, 'cos you may find
> all your trafic coming from only one of your uplinks.
Despite being a v6 skeptic, I'm not sure I understand what the issue is=20
here. Lots of networks multihome with only single v4 prefixes. In=20
general, different upsteram providers are close to different portions of=20
the Internet, so you end up with some traffic coming on each connection.=20
If there's a serious imbalance, it's usually somewhat adjustable with AS=20
path prepending, and if that doesn't work it probably means you should=20
have a more diverse set of upstream providers.
No, you don't get as much granularity as you do when adjusting outbound=20
traffic flows, or as much as you'd get by manipulating lots of little=20
announcements, but it's often close enough.
--0-1606588292-1183153930=:42478--
