(6bone) Ingress filtering (was: asymmetric routing)

[Matteo Tescione]

I don't mean that the only goal of ipv6 is multihoming.
I only think that multihoming in ipv6 has to be more simple than v4...
A simple situation is where I get 1 prefix and 2 upstream, i don't need
more...
Regards,
Matteo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "Matteo Tescione" <wizard@italiansky.com>
Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: (6bone) Ingress filtering (was: asymmetric routing)


> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Matteo Tescione wrote:
> > > Problem with IPv6 multihoming is that IPv4 multihoming is so "easy"
and
> > > works quite well.  It may be we can't design a protocol or equivalent
that
> > > will handle the scenarios responsibly and as well.
> > Easy???
>
> Just get prefix A.B.C.0/24 and two ISP's, pay them, configure BGP with
> them and advertise as appropriate.
>
> > According to you if ipv4 multihoming is easy, ipv6 multihoming will be
> > impossible...
> > And if ipv6 multihoming will be impossible I suggest to stop
experimenting
> > ipv6.
>
> Who said the (only) goal of IPv6 was multihoming?
>
> This can be seen as a good thing: it forces everyone to stop the
> irresponsible practise of cluttering global routing table (among others).
> A drawback is that we don't have anything really concrete to offer for
> site multihoming problem in the place of old practises; there are a few
> proposals though.
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> > To: "Joel Baker" <lucifer@lightbearer.com>
> > Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU>
> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 11:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: (6bone) Ingress filtering (was: asymmetric routing)
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > > Any protocol which does not support the ability to control traffic
> > balance
> > > > to some degree... will just be ignored. After all, why should a
business
> > > > spend millions of dollars to adopt a protocol which makes their
> > connections
> > > > far less efficient?
> > >
> > > A protocol that will make multihoming work _at all_ would fit the
criteria
> > > IMO.
> > >
> > > > interests is... well, just read the sentance. Anything which doesn't
> > give
> > > > out PI space, and routes, to everyone who has them now, just isn't
> > likely
> > > > to really fly.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>
> --
> 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
>