[ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document

[Azinger, Marla]

Outside of the IETF I have been in brief contact with two new groups that are forming to look at these routing issues.  They have not publicly announced their existance yet (as far as I know), and I do not see it my place to do so.  However, I will do my best to collaborate with them and keep my document updated with what comes out of those groups.  As for IETF, yes, there is discussion regarding this subject going on in V6WG OPS and a document is being worked on.  Should the discussion grow into a new WG?  Possibly, and with input from the community this very well could happen.

Thank you
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Howard, W. Lee
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:07 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Multihome Pro Con Document


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Michel Py
>
> 2. Replace BGP with a protocol that does not care about 
> routing table bloat. Memory is cheap; the days that led to 
> the "aggregated" IPv6 design when a 7500/RSP2/128 was the 
> baddest core router one could buy are long gone. Today people 
> are running dual full feeds on a 1800...

My understanding of the problem (I don't work on a default-free
network anymore) is that keeping up with changes is expensive
in CPU, not in memory, and that lookups against a large table
are expensive in latency.

What is the appropriate IETF WG for design of IPv6 multihoming
solutions?  shim6 is a specific solution; v6ops doesn't sound
quite right.  

Lee

> 
> Michel.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml