Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
Yakov Rekhter
yakov at juniper.net
Tue Apr 3 15:27:54 UTC 2001
Greg,
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> > At 08:37 03/04/01, Greg Maxwell wrote:
> > >Replace the internet with a highly aggregated IPv6 network
> > >which uses transport level multihoming and you gain a factor
> > >of 1000 improvement at core routers (and 100,000x further
> > >from the core where you no longer need to be default-free)
> > >and still have the oppturnity for a further 5x by going
> > >to a state-of-the-art CPU (providing that your cpu speed
> > >reasoning is valid).
> >
> > Precisely which "highly aggregated IPv6 network
> > which uses transport level multihoming" is one talking about ?
> > What's the RFC on this ?
>
> It's possible to 'solve' these problems in the future:
> Forbid IP level multihoming for IPv6 which crosses aggregation boundaries.
> I.e. absolutly no multihoming that inflates more then your providers
> routing tabling, connect to whoever you want, but no AS should emit a
> route for any other AS without aggregating it into their own space without
> a special agreement of limited scope (i.e. not globally!)
Who is going to "forbid" this ? And who is going to enforce this ?
> > AFAIK, IPv6 multihoming is identical to IPv4 multihoming,
> > with all the same adverse implications on the default-free routing
> > table -- hence the creation of an IETF MULTI6 WG to try
> > to change this. If I've missed some recent advance in the
> > IETF specifications, please share the details (preferably citing
> > RFC and page number :-) with the rest of us.
>
> IPv6 multihoming *is* the same.
>
> What I argue is that: Routers are the wrong place to do multihoming for
> anything but Tier-1 connectivity. Multihoming belongs in the end node.
>
> SCTP (2960) is a transport level protcol which offers what amounts to a
> superset of TCP. One of it's features is multihoming (2960; section 6.4).
>
> With such a protcol it is possible to accomplish all of the realibility
> benifits of IP multihoming while achieving much greater scalability,
> flexibility, and performance.
>
> We need to stop looking at IP addresses as host-identifyers (thats what
> DNS is for) and look at them as path-identifyers.
Perhaphs. But (stating the facts) for now, both in IPv4 *and* in
IPv6 IP addresses carry dual semantics - host-identifiers (aka
end-point identifiers) *and* path-identifiers (aka locators).
Yakov.
More information about the NANOG
mailing list