nanog mailing list archives
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:31:56 +0100 (CET)
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Daniel Roesen wrote:
There is no way to do traffic engineering with any shim6-like system like one can do with BGP as shim6 is a completely host-centric solution. It has no clue about upstream/downstream/peering, ASses etc. Those things that actually make topology and economics. That's aside all the other administrative nightmares associated.
The current routing model doesn't scale. I don't want to sit 5 years from now needing a router that'll handle 8 million routes to get me through the next 5 years of route growth.
PI space for multihoming and AS number growth is a bad thing for scaling and economics, however you look at it.
Shim6 would hopefully curb the prefix growth very early in the growth curve as single entities won't need AS to multihome between two different ISPs.
I do believe in a completely new solution for multihoming than what we have today, shim6 is the first I've seen so far, I'm open to other suggestions though. Current way of doing it (AS+PI) gives me the creeps when I extrapolate into the future.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Re: protocols that don't meet the need..., (continued)
- Re: protocols that don't meet the need... David Meyer (Feb 14)
- Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Christian Kuhtz (Feb 14)
- Re: protocols that don't meet the need... David Meyer (Feb 15)
- Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Fred Baker (Feb 15)
- manet, for example (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Christian Kuhtz (Feb 15)
- Re: manet, for example (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Fred Baker (Feb 15)
- Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Feb 15)
- Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Per Heldal (Feb 15)
- Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Feb 15)