Hi Bill, Some comments on rrgarchitectures.html.
On Strategy G: >> Make everybody attach to only one ISP using IPv6 and the ISP's single set of PA addresses, as originally intended for IPv6. Can you provide a xref for this statement? RFC1887 describes 4 solutions for Multi-homed Routing Domains (section 4.4). It seems that users like the solution described in 4.4.1 (PI addresses) and thus we are facing the disadvantage: >> The disadvantage of this approach is that since the IPv6 address for that organization has no relationship to the addresses of any particular TRD, the TRDs to which this organization is attached will need to advertise the prefix for this organization to other providers. Other providers (potentially worldwide) will need to maintain an explicit entry for that organization in their routing >> tables. On Strategy B and H: I think the difference of the two strategies is minor. Make methods A2a and A2b for these? And on the criticisms: With B: Why would LOCs be constantly in flux? Fixing this should be part of the strategy. With H: I think renumbering has succeeded sometimes also. I would agree it could be costly and / or error prone. Teco. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
