[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts
El 12/08/2004, a las 2:16, Tony Li escribió:
There is a feature that I'm very much in favor of that could help
here: the ability to implement a multihoming solution in middleboxes
or border routers. In such a scenario, there would be a set of
addresses for internal use in the site, and the proxy multihoming
devices add the multihoming capability somewhere close to the border
of the network. The good thing here is that there is no need to
modify each individual host to obtain multihoming benefits, and it's
easier to implement policy in a few central places rather than
distributed over all the hosts in the network.
Architecturally, this is the right thing to do. However, it is an
implicit validation of NAT, and if NAT's ok,
then why do we need v6 in the first place?
Ideally, in an Internet architecture that we don't have today, there
would be N prefixes, one per ISP. However, the host
portion of the locator would be a constant regardless of prefix. The
IGP need not know about the external prefixes, so there's
no issue there.
But this implies modifying IGPs, right?
The EGP is not impacted because each of the prefixes is out of the
respective SP's aggregate.