[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Reducing Peerings for MH Routing within a site via end systems
>If a host has multiple locators and a single identifier and other hosts
are able >to change the locator that they are using at will, then it
implies that special
Clarification. Above you have "conjunction" ...and other hosts? I
assume you mean any host can change their locator?
>routing information about that site need not be propagated upwards.
That is where I was going with RZPs.
>Effectively, the site has PA space from each of its providers and that
PA space >is nicely aggregated in global routing.
So the locators for this site is known by all of the sites providers,
>Yes, this makes MHH's much nicer for global routing, tho it may still
>issues with local routing. Kinda depends what you want to do within
Agree but what one does with IGP should not break peer-to-peer
applications between remote provider on the other side of the planet.
IPsec between those two peers without any translation of the packets
Do we agree on that and this is a core principle for any Internet
engineer one way or the other? Has nothing to do with routing except as
input to what one is willing to give up in the design of routing
architecture and an important point to raise amongst ourseleves on the
>One could reasonably argue that you take the layer of separation down
Within the IGP from the Provider space? If that, then I agree.
>Note that this alleviates the most painful reason to avoid PA space:
But above you state "nicely aggregates provider space"? Can you
>renumbering is now a non-issue. You assign a new locator to your
>advertise it to the world and you're good to go. Individual host
>need not change. No host renumbering.
But still implies locators can change? For example one move to
completely new providers?
Your location is not worldwide provider space but only for relative
provider space for a site?
Is that correct?