a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

John Payne john at sackheads.org
Thu Feb 16 17:05:35 UTC 2006

On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Edward B. DREGER wrote:

> The biggest problem is when customer's link to provider A goes down  
> and
> inbound traffic must flow through provider B.  This necessitates some
> sort of path between A and B where more-specifics can flow.

Are most of the multihomers REALLY a one router shop (implied by your  
renumbering is easy comment) - although shim6 could help there I guess.

You've also eliminated any possibility of the end multihomed site  
doing any ingress traffic engineering. I suppose they can do egress  
which is better than shim6 allows... but in today's world where I get  
a completely different price for transit than my neighbor - this plan  
is going to screw some the multihomed sites financially.

More information about the NANOG mailing list