[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: administrivia (on avoiding injury)
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 10:14:12PM -0400, Jim Bound wrote:
> > I have seen extensive feedback, but I'm not sure I've seen too much
> > feedback that would require a change to the existing draft. I may
> > have missed a thread or two.
> What about Itojuns reqs list early on when we started? Quite a bit there.
The following correction looks entirely sensible:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:46:34AM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > Multihoming is an essential component of service for autonomous
> > systems connected to the Internet. The existing multihoming
> > architecture is based on CIDR , which is predicated upon a
> > hierarchy of service providers.
> "autonomous system" - we may need to clarify that it does not need to
> be an "autonomous system" in BGP terminology. it can be an IPv6 leaf
> site, without autonomous system number (see
> draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-2260-00.txt, use of RFC2260-like technique
> with RIPng).
The other points referred to the case where an edge network is multi-
attached to a single provider network, which I replied to at the time
(see below). If there are disagreements with my reasoning, please let
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:45:05AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:46:34AM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > >3.1 Redundancy
> > >
> > > By obtaining transit through more than one provider, a network can
> > > insulate itself from certain failure modes of one or more providers,
> > > as well as failures within layer 1 and layer 2 infrastructure.
> > it looks to me that we should cover "multiple connectivity to
> > a single provider", like to different NOCs/routers.
> Multi-attaching to the same provider is a simplified case of the
> general cidr multi-homing technique, which doesn't suffer from:
> + contribution to AS exhaustion (private-use ASNs can be used)
> + path or prefix bloat (the prefixes announced by the multi-homing
> site can be aggregated by the single provider)
> However, it also doesn't fully satisfy the stated requirements, which
> included the requirement to protect against routing anomolies in a
> single autonomous system; the exact text describing the failure mode
> o Service provider failure, such as a backbone-wide IGP failure, and
> It might be worthwhile spelling this out in the draft, I guess.