[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"architectural change" [RE: Draft: PI addressing derived from ASnumbers]
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
> > In the long term, i'm rather convinced that an architectural change will
> > be required. I can't see other scalable alternatives.
> this is also what i see, though i am anxiously awaiting enlightenment.
Perhaps it was not clear what I meant with an "architectural change", and
I should try to clarify.
I didn't mean we need IPv7; rather, that the model of solving a problem of
locator/identifier problem and dumb end-hosts with a global routing
For example, I consider models where multihomed hosts make a much more
active role in the current "multihoming routing" problem an architectural
change, as well as separating identifiers and locators as in LIN6 (or even
more so, HIP), etc. as architectural changes.
Certainly, there are ways to do multihoming with IPv6 today. And there
will be ways. But one point many, myself included, have tried to make is
that doing it the way most have done it with IPv4 -- that is using BGP
with "PI addresses" -- is not scalable. That is likely the only solution
for a long time to satisfy all those requirements.
For example, I personally have great faith in "multiple addresses from
multiple providers" -approach (though there are some small ways it will
have to be improved): it should give a sufficient amount of multihoming to
most sites. Also, multiple connections to a single ISP are also a way to
The major things I see missing are:
- ways to get upstream _independence_
- scalable ways to protect against your upstream ISP failures (if
multiple addresses per node approach is not sufficient)
.. but I'm not sure whether solutions for these are really even required:
people just want them because they've always had them.
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings