[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing
Jeroen Massar jeroen at unfix.org
Wed Mar 5 22:27:51 CET 2003
Måns Nilsson wrote: > --On Wednesday, March 05, 2003 17:53:00 +0100 Jeroen Massar > <jeroen at unfix.org> wrote: <SNIP> > > 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. Case one means having more than one prefixes on the cable, or in diagram style: +-----+ +-----------+ 2001:db8:11:22::/64 +------+ | the +---+ Cable ISP +------------------------+ eth0 | | N | +-----------+ | | | E | | YOU | | T | +-----------+ 3ffe:ffff:33:42::/64 | | | +---+ ADSL ISP +------------------------+ eth1 | +-----+ +-----------+ +------+ Thus YOU gets 2 different prefixes from 2 different upstreams. Ofcourse YOU could also get two /48's routed to him from these upstreams or more ofcourse. The fact is that a 'server' eg a web server will have 2 IP's; eg: www.example.com AAAA 2001:0db8:11:22::80 AAAA 3ffe:ffff:33:42::80 Ofcourse replace Cable and ADSL with the bigger lines, this is just to illustrate that the definition of 'multihoming' is quite a different thing for most people. As I said this will only work when using SCTP to 'multihome' when one of the two uplinks fail. In case two both upstreams carry "your" prefix, eg 2001:db8:11:22::/64 to the rest of the world, diagram style: +-----+ +-----------+ 2001:db8:11:22::/64 +------+ +------+ | the +---+ Cable ISP +------------------------+ R | | | | N | +-----------+ | o | | | | E | | u +----+ eth0 | | T | +-----------+ 2001:db8:11:22::/64 | t | | | | +---+ ADSL ISP +------------------------+ er | | | +-----+ +-----------+ +------+ +------+ Note that the moment you only have one physical path to the rest of the world you should not be talking about 'multihoming' any more (case 3) I always wonder why people want L3 level 'multihoming' even though their L1 and L2 path aren't. > 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. Every ISP that can match up to the current requirements for address space can get a /32 from all three RIRs. If you can't, you simply are not big enough and you won't have any multiple links either. If one really wants 99.9% certainty that their inet works one either needs to do it themselves and thus get multiple L1+L2 paths and the hardware along with it and then most of the times you are a big enough customer to get a /32 too. If you aren't you should just get a better upstream. Yes, I know, it all sounds quite harsh. Greets, Jeroen
[ lir-wg Archives ]