Subject: RE: Consensus check

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:22:24 -0800

I believe that if we have any consensus, it is as Marcelo mention focusing on solutions for an "edge site", i.e. a site whose routers do not relay packets on behalf of other sites. As Noel noted, any short term work is constrained by the "catenet/datagram" model of IPv6; we could debate at length whether this is a bug or a feature. The limitations are clear: we can use multi-homing for redondancy, but the amount of policy they can exercize is by and large limited to picking the correct exit router in their own site.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Michael H. Lambert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:53:38 -0500

> I believe that if we have any consensus, it is as Marcelo mention
> focusing on solutions for an "edge site", i.e. a site whose routers do
> not relay packets on behalf of other sites. As Noel noted, any short term
> work is constrained by the "catenet/datagram" model of IPv6; we could
> debate at length whether this is a bug or a feature. The limitations are
> clear: we can use multi-homing for redondancy, but the amount of policy
> they can exercize is by and large limited to picking the correct exit
> router in their own site.

A common configuration in the (US, at least) academic community is for 
several universities to connect to an aggregator (GigaPoP).  The GigaPoP 
has connectivity to one or more research networks, and, often, to one or 
more commodity providers.  Many have IPv6 allocations from the Abilene PA 
block and are working on obtaining them from commodity providers.  Thus the 
GigaPoP will be multi-homed, and will pass prefixes from each provider to 
the universities.  For administrative reasons, selection of source and 
destination addresses will have to be done by the universities, not by the 
GigaPoP.

I think this scenario (from both the university and GigaPoP perspectives) 
should be considered by this WG.

Michael

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael H. Lambert, Network Engineer           Phone: +1 412 268-4960 |
| Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center               FAX:   +1 412 268-8200 |
| 4400 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA  15213       [email-masked]        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

---

From: "marcelo bagnulo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:03:40 +0100

Hello Michael,

> should be considered by this WG.

Wouldn?t this be the case of exchange based multi-homing solution? (as
described in RFC 2374)

Regards, marcelo

---

From: "Michael H. Lambert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 22:29:50 -0500

Hi, Marcelo,

> Wouldn?t this be the case of exchange based multi-homing solution? (as

Yes, I think we could obtain a PA allocation as an LIR from ARIN.  I have 
to admit I have philosophical objections to using our own address block--it 
does nothing to minimize the size of the DFZ routing table.  Is it better 
to adopt the expedient solution now (using our own address block) rather 
than wait for the "correct" solution later (sane routing and address 
selection with multiple PA addresses on each interface)?  I would 
appreciate discussion either way--if the community starts down this path it 
will be difficult to change.  But a working solution is needed sooner 
rather than later.

Michael