Home page logo

nanog logo nanog 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 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.

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]