Philip Homburg wrote:
>> which means an end system should have a full routing table, IGP
>> metrics in which tell the end system what is the best address of
>> its multihomed peer. Full routing table should and can, of course,
>> be small.
>
> Even in the unlikely case that it would be feasible to give every host a
> complete copy of the DFZ routing table...
With RFC2374, DFZ of IPv6 has at most 8192 entries.
> That still would leave a lot of issues open...
> 1) End-to-end latency. Maybe some future generation BGP provides that, but
> that doesn't help now.
Your requirement can be fair, only with a routing protocol
supporting latency based routing for *an* address with
*multiple* paths to its destination.
There is no point to have a latency based selection of
multiple paths to the destination, only if the destination
has multiple addresses.
> 2) For 6to4, the use of anycase. You probably need a link-state routing
> protocol to allow a host to figure out which relays are going to be used
> on
> a give path.
With anycast, you can use only a single relay. Instead, you can
compare metrics between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses of a host.
> 3) Filters in firewalls. I'd love to see a routing protocol that reports the
> settings of all firewalls in the world :-)
Are you saying filtering of firewalls can be disabled by proper
address selection?
> 4) Other performance metrics, like jitter, packets loss, etc.
See 1).
> Maybe you can do some experiments and report on how well your draft works for
> deciding when to prefer a 6to4 address over IPv4.
A problem is that there is no point to stick to IPv6 broken
so much.
But, it's not my problem.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
