mailing list archives
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
From: John Payne <john () sackheads org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:05:35 -0500
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
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.