On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 10:57 -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > <SNIP> > > Are you suggesting that something else is required for ISPs above and > > beyond announcing PI space with BGP, or that shim6 (once baked and > > real) would present a threat to ISPs? > > There is one situation which is not really covered here, one can of > course announce multiple de-aggregates, but, these will be filtered. > As such announcing them will only hurt one a lot, as the 'transits' > that do carry them are mostly of bad quality. > > eg take the following situation: > snip following one example of multihoming problems... there are others. > > In this case, which is basically "traffic engineering for endsites with > a global prefix", one runs into the shim6 thing again.... > > For instance UUNET 'solved' this in a different way, they simply > requested a 10 or so separate /32's. See GRH for the list. > These chunks are still /32's thus only <n> of these /32's can exist in > the global routing table. It would still be 'nicer' if they only had to > use one prefix... One may want to have more options :) one might want to perhaps peer in region, or by national boundary... you must have options, a single prefix, as your example above showed, is not an option. -Chris