Subject: Re: one size doesn' fit all (was Re: other requirement? (was Re: [RAM] Traffic Engineering

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:52:19 -0500 (EST)

> From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>

    > But it's important that any general solution does not impose
    > unwarranted and burdensome requirements on the global Interent.  

Oh, you mean like forcing every router in the entire default-free zone
to carry an advertisement for site X's PI-address?

    > I believe that SHIM6 and similar proposals do this, and so I don't
    > want to see this posited as 'the multihoming solution' .. don't
    > force SHIM6 or anything like it on me as a base requirement for
    > multihoming.

So, what's your concept for the right way to support multi-homing for
smaller sites?

	Noel

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:13:47 -0800

> to carry an advertisement for site X's PI-address?

This is a problem, we all acknowledge that.  But I submit that the  
proposed SHIM6 solution is iatrogenic in nature due to the reasons  
outlined previously.

> So, what's your concept for the right way to support multi-homing for

I believe that 'the IPv6 mulithoming solution' ought to be  
generalizable and scalable to sites of all sizes.  If folks want to  
use mechanisms like SHIM6 internally, fine, but the disadvantages of  
such mechanisms will outweigh their utility for the vast majority,  
IMHO, and so this class of proposals cannot be realistically  
considered for 'the IPv6 multihoming solution'.

I don't know what the right solution is, yet.  But I do know that  
shifting the problem by mandating that the initial path selection  
will take place on endpoints with multiple IP addresses which will be  
assigned and then re-assigned, and then re-assigned again ad  
infinitum based upon transitory customer-to-SP business relationships  
isn't it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]> // 408.527.6376 voice

		All battles are perpetual.

     		   -- Milton Friedman

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:31:39 +0100

El 31/12/2006, a las 16:13, Roland Dobbins escribió:

> generalizable and scalable to sites of all sizes.

This is exactly where we disagree. I think this is very hard because if 
you add up all the requirements of all type of potential multihomed 
sites, from a unmanaged lan with a couple of PCs to a highly managed 
huge corporation site, and you also add al the border constratints, 
like scalability of the routing system, then you have very very 
difficult problem

That is why i am proposing to identify different type of multihomed 
sites and find different solutions for them

regards, marcelo

[email-masked]>
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: one size doesn' fit all (was Re: other requirement? (was Re:
	[RAM] Traffic Engineering
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:31:39 +0100
To: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]

El 31/12/2006, a las 16:13, Roland Dobbins escribió:

> generalizable and scalable to sites of all sizes.

This is exactly where we disagree. I think this is very hard because if 
you add up all the requirements of all type of potential multihomed 
sites, from a unmanaged lan with a couple of PCs to a highly managed 
huge corporation site, and you also add al the border constratints, 
like scalability of the routing system, then you have very very 
difficult problem

That is why i am proposing to identify different type of multihomed 
sites and find different solutions for them

regards, marcelo

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:39:28 -0800

> sites and find different solutions for them

This certainly makes sense, but how do we identify 'types' of  
multihomed sites other than by some arbitrary criteria of scale (and  
of which things - number of endpoints, number of PoPs, number of  
transit links, etc.)?  Within the current IPv4 and IPv6 paradigms,  
can we identify *qualitative* differences between a home user with a / 
24 and two T1s to different SPs and a large multinational corporation  
with multiple PoPs/SPs on multiple continents?

     		   -- Milton Friedman

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:06:16 -0800

>> That is why i am proposing to identify different type of  
>> multihomed sites and find different solutions for them
>
> multihomed sites other than by some arbitrary criteria of scale  
> (and of which things - number of endpoints, number of PoPs, number  
> of transit links, etc.)?  Within the current IPv4 and IPv6  
> paradigms, can we identify *qualitative* differences between a home  
> user with a /24 and two T1s to different SPs and a large  
> multinational corporation with multiple PoPs/SPs on multiple  
> continents?

Architecturally, sites that simply differ in traffic volume or  
internal complexity shouldn't be dealt with separately.  Thus, a  
'clean' solution should not require entirely different solutions for  
different market sub-segments.

Tony

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:57:07 -0800

On Dec 31, 2006, at 10:06 AM, Tony Li wrote:

> 'clean' solution should not require entirely different solutions  
> for different market sub-segments.

Concur, as attempting to do so by any objective criteria seems doomed  
to failure.  Also, networks may grow or shrink over time; while some  
changes are inevitable in such circumstances, a major paradigm-shift  
in the way traffic is handled ought not to be required.

This also applies to sites which are single-homed today, but which  
may wish to become multi-homed tomorrow, or vice versa.  Adding  
onerous requirements for moving from one mode of global connectivity  
to another (as if starting from scratch with BGP isn't already hard  
enough for folks without previous exposure to it, heh) is  
contraindicated.

     		   -- Milton Friedman

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 22:51:09 +0100

El 31/12/2006, a las 19:06, Tony Li escribió:

>> can we identify *qualitative* differences between a home user with a 
>> /24 and two T1s to different SPs and a large multinational 
>> corporation with multiple PoPs/SPs on multiple continents?
>
>

i though we have already passed the point of a clean solutions and we 
were trying to find the less of two evils :-)

more seriuosly, i think that an important different is management. I 
mean, big sites have professional network admins that can configure 
complex protocols (e.g. bgp) Moreover, because of that they are likely 
to want some centralized way to enforce the configurations. A home 
network  does not have a network admin (ir the network admin is the 
user) and it is likely he is not able to do complex configurations.

I think this is (may be) an important difference

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:35:49 -0800

On Dec 31, 2006, at 1:51 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:

> big sites have professional network admins that can configure  
> complex protocols (e.g. bgp) Moreover, because of that they are  
> likely to want some centralized way to enforce the configurations.

One would think that larger enterprises would have these sorts of  
folks available, but it isn't always true (not even predominantly  
true, IMHO), and even when people with those skillsets are on staff,  
there are generally only a few of them and this sort of thing may not  
be their only responsibility, either.

Larger enterprises typically do have configuration-management systems  
of one sort or another, but (again, like most SPs), they're often  
fairly basic systems in that they allow for automatic provisioning  
and config versioning, but there's not a lot of logic present which  
automates the development of the config itself, in most cases (this  
is one of the main motivating factors behind the development of  
NETCONF).  One partial exception to this observation is in the  
generation of ACLs, but the automation for most ACL-generation  
systems in use today is limited and somewhat brittle, at best, and  
often does not take into differences in platform capabilities/ 
performance/resources.

[ Come to think of it, this all sounds remarkably similar to a lot of  
SPs, doesn't it? ;> ]

> A home network  does not have a network admin (ir the network admin  
> is the user) and it is likely he is not able to do complex  
> configurations.

Most large enterprises don't handle complex configurations well,  
either - see above.  They often end up building unnecessarily complex  
networks for various reasons, but that's not the same thing, heh.

> I think this is (may be) an important difference

In my experience, the difference isn't as great as one would think,  
IMHO.

     		   -- Milton Friedman