[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing

--On Wednesday, March 05, 2003 17:53:00 +0100 Jeroen Massar
<jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:

> Tunnels are just one of the _transitions methods_ for the endusers,
> that they where also used to bind together the 6bone is something else.
> The bigger and IPv6 aware ISP's are quickly moving out of that, read:
> http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt

Of course. This is a discussion "post-tunnel". My comment was in the spirit
of "going forth from the lab activity under 3FFE". Today 6bone is legacy. 

> I also am wondering how people define "multihoming".
> Do they define it as:
>  - Multiple prefixes over multiple cables from multiple upstreams.
>  - One prefix over multiple cables from multiple upstreams.
>  - One prefix over one cable from multiple upstreams.
> 
> If you are talking about the last case, where one only has one
> physical upstream... one shouldn't call that multihoming.
> I guess the second one is where people are talking about.
> And the first one is what I would call real multihoming,
> though one needs SCTP to make that work.

Cases one and two. One or more prefixes advertised over multiple upstreams.
Although my idea is to give people so much space in their initial
allocation that only the biggest networks will need more than one prefix,
thus keeping the routing table as close to "nPrefixes == nAS-numbers" as
possible. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson            Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC  MN1334-RIPE

We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/lir-wg/attachments/20030305/2532ba15/attachment.sig>