Subject: RE: Transport level multihoming

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:16:46 +0200 (CEST)

Peter -

  It would be interesting to see you put together a quick attempt
at a formal registry allocation policy (with or without RIRs) for
the small-DFZ aproach.

  I am not sure how I* would publish such a policy, but I think
it would help crystallize the argument about the viability of
the small-DFZ proposal.

  Certainly, if you and others (e.g. Christian Huitema) can 
put together some framework for actually operating the small-DFZ,
then I'm sure that if multi6 is not the correct WG, something can
be spun up in the Ops area.

  However, here's a good place to test how multihoming will
actually work for sites of various sizes, for various approaches,
independent of what biases people have.

	Sean.

---

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:46:54 +1000 (EST)

> it would help crystallize the argument about the viability of

I will respond to this later.

> independent of what biases people have.

One of the difficulties that makes "testing" difficult is that you can only
simulate the ideas and draw inferences from the results.  Most every other
protocol on the internet today has been put together by incremental design with
lessons being learned from real life over considerable amounts of time.  One
lesson we are learning is that EGPs aren't scaling too well, and thumb nail
simulations would indicate that it mightn't scale for Ipv6 because of the huge
address space.

The best we can do is build up a test network using the 6bone and configure it
for strong aggregation multi homing with decision making at the edges.  I don't
think this task is too difficult.  I can code up the protocol fairly quickly &
I believe there is BSD implementation in existence but I'm not sure about
availablility.

At the root of the whole debate is that we only get one chance to get it right.
It's like trying to land a guy on the moon.  If you screw up, there's a lot at
stake.

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            [email-masked]
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210

---

From: Greg Maxwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:21:50 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Peter Tattam wrote:

[snip]
> It's like trying to land a guy on the moon.  If you screw up, there's a lot at

Poor analogy. If we kill the guy going to the moon, it's a single event.

If we grow the production IPv6 Internet without strong aggregation and
node/IP independence we might be crushed under the mess for some time to
come.

---

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 10:25:30 +1000 (EST)

But don't forget the run up to the moon took 10+ years of work - at stake
wasn't just the man's life, but rather the national pride of USA.  This is kind
of the same, a lot of poeple have invested blood, sweat & tears into IPv6 and
don't want it to fall on its head.  On the other hand they don't want to see it
still born because of delays in getting key components together.

Peter