Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
My second point is that assumptions like "the best path is through a
prefix we both use" are silly. Analysis of a common traceroute will
show that two random users tend to use two random ISPs. So a routing
policy tat starts from "assume both users are using the same prefix"
is a lost cause. Start from the assumption that you're looking for an
address pair that works, and as a second choice, works well for a
given ISP pair.
I agree. Well, if you happen to have the same prefix, then it makes
sense. Also, in say an enterprise, most of the communication is probably
internal where this makes sense.
Sure, that was always clear to me - longest match only makes sense
when you have already eliminated pretty much every other criterion.
Longest match with other hosts under the same enterprise prefix is
probably the best example.
But I agree that for most communication on the Internet, it is useless.
There are some other effects though (like preferring 2001 to reach 2001,
2002 to reach 2002 etc) but there may be better ways of achieving that.
I see the argument for 2002 but why 2001? It isn't special.
Ehm, you're right of course. Basically it might be good to treat
different types of addresses differently, but matching bits is not a
good way to do that.
Stig
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
