[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(6bone) Ingress filtering (was: asymmetric routing)
- Subject: (6bone) Ingress filtering (was: asymmetric routing)
- From: [email protected] (Pekka Savola)
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:46:27 +0200 (EET)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Joel Baker wrote:
> Any protocol which does not support the ability to control traffic balance
> to some degree... will just be ignored. After all, why should a business
> spend millions of dollars to adopt a protocol which makes their connections
> far less efficient?
A protocol that will make multihoming work _at all_ would fit the criteria
> interests is... well, just read the sentance. Anything which doesn't give
> out PI space, and routes, to everyone who has them now, just isn't likely
> to really fly.
Problem with IPv6 multihoming is that IPv4 multihoming is so "easy" and
works quite well. It may be we can't design a protocol or equivalent that
will handle the scenarios responsibly and as well.
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords