multihoming

[Pekka Savola]

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, Bill Manning wrote:
> % >> I was under the impression that IPv6 multihoming required an ASN?
> % >It does indeed require one as the only way to be multihomed today in IPv6 is to be a xTLA.
> % 
> % 	depending on what you mean by "multihoming" and what kind of failure
> % 	you want to cope with.
> % 	yes, if you want to do currently-practiced provider-independent address/
> % 	punching-hole routing info style multihoming, you need an ASN.
> % 
> % 	RFC3178 is working just fine for me without ASN or provider-independent
> % 	address/punching hole (basically, you get two /48 prefixes from two
> % 	upstream provider, and you can cope with link failure to upstream).
> % 
> % 	btw, i wonder why it is justified by people doing punching-hole style
> % 	multihome, to taint/overload worldwide routing table for the benefit of
> % 	a leaf site.  i guess we need a better routing protocol, or something.
> % 
> % itojun
> 
> 	tainting/overloading the routing table for IPv6 is 
> 	a non-issue at this point in time.  [...]

Sure, but stopping an avalanche is not an easy job.  We haven't managed to
kill irresponsible multihoming etc. with IPv4, so if we let go of these
requirements, we'll probably never be able to prevent the future problems.

When IPv6 routing table is at e.g. 5,000 entries, it may be too late to
set any effective policies.  We're seeing this now with IPv4 /24's etc.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords