more tunnels and what to do next (fwd)

Dear Steve Deering,
>
>> That's what I am currently doing and it works, but as Alain pointed 
>> out that we don't want a star topology. I agree fully with Alain's
>> idea which has always been my chant, i.e. do heirachial routing.
>
>I think that an approximate star topology, i.e., a small mesh of "backbone"
>routers, with individual sites connected as leaves to the nearest one
>or two backbone routers, would be just fine for a while.  If you want to
>exploit a richer topology and get out of the static configuration game,
>then use a dynamic routing protocol, like RIPng.  Hierarchical routing
>is what you do when flat routing gets too big -- I don't think that'll
>be the case at least for the next 6 months.
>
>Steve
>
>

I actually meant almost the same, though stupid enough not to be able to 
express it well in my mails. Currently we have a single central node and
I was against that. I has always been giving an example of UNH-BAY-CLOUD
where there is one connection to the bone and that tunnel endpoint takes
care of routing internally and I wanted a single autonomous number being
used for all three of us and so that we have a common prefix. That's what
I wrote to Craig Metz a few days back. 

Hence we have a few core routers each routing for a big cloud and the cloud 
should have one common prefix (desirable) or a few, not a lots, i.e.
one for each subnet. How the cloud handles internal routing can be its own
policy.

By the way I thought the large addresses were created for heirachial routing
and 6bone was something experimental where we can try this out.

Regards
Quaizar


-- 
------------------------------------------------------
Quaizar Vohra
Inter-Operatibility Lab. (IOL), Univ. of New Hampshire
E-mail : qv@sun4.iol.unh.edu
Phone : (603)-862-0090



-- 
------------------------------------------------------
Quaizar Vohra
Inter-Operatibility Lab. (IOL), Univ. of New Hampshire
E-mail : qv@sun4.iol.unh.edu
Phone : (603)-862-0090