On 29/10/2014 02:06, Ole Troan wrote: > Fred, > >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1 >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing/?include_text=1 >> Speaking strictly for myself, I’m not sure why homenet is relevant. The >> technology is related to networks that have different routing depend on on >> one’s use case. A class of solutions for it has been called the “fish” >> problem, and built using multi-topology routing. In homenet, it’s called >> SADR, and is primarily about egress routing (routing to an egress to an >> upstream ISP that gave you a PA prefix). While one doesn’t really want to >> confuse theory with practice, in theory it could be used between points of a >> network, to prevent folks using one set of prefixes to talk with another >> set, or to force routing of some sessions in some ways. >> >> Personally, those are a class of problems I associate with campus networks >> more than residential networks. > > why homenet is relevant? > isn't multi-prefix multi-homing one of the most obvious use cases for source > address dependent routing? that's not restricted with homenets, but also any > small network. I'm assuming large networks will continue with PI addresses > and BGP based multihoming.
If you mean by "large" the few ten thousand largest networks in the world, that will not cause significant BGP4 bloat by having PI, then yes, I fully agree. Any medium to small network should expect to have multiple prefixes in the long run (we are not talking about today, but a time when all we old folks who remember the IPv4 world have retired and gone fishing). Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
