[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The state of IPv6 multihoming development
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I don't see any relationship with interdomain multicast, so
> the fact that this has been hard to deploy in the past (and
> unless I'm mistaken the scalability problems have now been
> largely solved) doesn't say anything about translation mechanisms.
Passing around state between administrative entities is always a trust
> Anything that happens in end-hosts should scale well. Moving
> the functionality to a different box outside, but still close
> to, the end-hosts should also scale as long as it's possible
> to deploy an arbitrary number of those boxes = no hard state.
As long as all participants are the same adminstrative entity, scaling
is not a serious problem.
> Content delivery systems often use complex NAT setups to
> balance the load and provide redundancy. Since what we're
> proposing here is simpler than NAT, I see no reason why it
> wouldn't work or scale.
But those content systems are run by a single entity. When multiple
parties are involved, the translation is done at a higher layer.
> And if for the truly huge networks this solution isn't
> viable, they can always use IPv4-style multihoming. (But
> they'd still need to implement all of this in order to be
> able to talk to others who use multi-address
We will end up with a system that looks like IPv4 muti-homing to the
sites that want that, but scales better for the service providers.
Anything less on either front is a non-starter.