Re: IPv6 Multi-homing BOF at NANOG 35

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

vijay gill wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > > How then does the ISP perform any traffic engineering if all of the  
> > > control is in
> > > the end-host?  That needs a _lot_ of focus because ISPs aren't going  
> > > to put their
> > > COGS into the hands of their end users.
> >
> >
> > See the TLV discussion that Jason started. While I'm not sure he has
> > the right mechanism, there is definitely a requirement for hosts
> > to switch locators on request from a TE function as well as on outage.
>
>
> I am assuming all hosts are hostile. Now what.

This is absolutely false on a corporate network, which is
a major use case for shim6. I know that may not be the context
that Nanog normally thinks about. Also, it will be in a subscriber's
best interests, I assume, to use the prefix that the ISP prefers,
in general. So I don't really see why hostility is relevant.

> > > Understood, but do not forget inbound path selection or weighting or  
> > > preference
> > > or whatever you want to call it.  That needs to be controllable from  
> > > the network
> > > level, not from the end hosts.
> >
> >
> > Yep. I think that is also a case where hosts will need to switch
> > on request.
>
>
> They don't.

They don't *today* because there is no mechanism yet. We need
to provide it, and the first step is basic shim6.

   Brian