Hi Eliot, Instead of renumbering, auto-configuration can be a more generic approach. In SIGCOMM 2007 IPv6 workshop we proposed a solution for small sites auto-configuration ( http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2007/ipv6/1569041157.pdf). This paper proposed an extension to OSPF, but it can be easily adapted to RIP. It can help also to solve one part of the multi-homing problem, i.e. route packets toward the provider which assigned the prefix used in the source address of the packet.
Laurent On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 07:58, Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Robin, > >> Eliot's suggestion (as I understand it) to exclude >> larger end-user networks from the (presumably) >> renumbering based solution for smaller networks >> would still leave many "smaller" networks way too >> big for "routine" renumbering. >> >> > > Again, let's separate the problem from the solution. To put it another > way, home and SMB networks really don't even have an option today to be > multihomed (at least not at the network layer), and so whatever growth we're > seeing today in the routing table is strictly that of larger institutions, > and related traffic engineering and (to a lesser extent) disaggregation to > protect large prefixes. > > If one solution can fit all, all the better. One is better than two, all > other things being equal. Whether they are or not is a fair question. > > Regards, > > Eliot > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > >
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
