[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: initial issues
On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 06:12:08PM -0000, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> The removal of the class boundaries in the address does not seem to
> aignificantly affect how multihoming might operate - what is surely
> important is the retention (or otherwise) of 'strong aggregation' i.e. that
> domains will only delegate sub-domain prefixes taken from the addresses
> which they have been allocated and they will only route packets to/from such
> sub-domains that have destination/source addresses in the delegated range.
> If v6 doesn't keep to strong aggregation we will be back in the v4 swamp
> very quickly.
We should also avoid starting off by saying what the final solution must look
like rather than specifying requirements. The delegation and forwarding
policy you describe above is one possible solution, but by no means is it
the only one, and it may not even be the best one. My understanding of
multi6 is that we are trying to 1) specify requirements for and 2) find
solutions for multihoming in general and multihoming as it relates to v6.