In the page you mention:
Strategy B
This is the elimination class of proposals. Any such proposal requires
new host functions, including changes to host stacks, APIs and
applications. Strategy B solutions do not not require changes to the
interdomain routing system or to the rest of the network, except
perhaps improvements to DNS.
No-one is suggesting such a solution for IPv4 - they are all
modifications to IPv6. This is due, in part, to the lack of IPv4
address space required for this technique, in which each multihomed
end-user network has a block of space from each upstream ISP, of the
same size as its network's address space.
ILNP is one such proposal, I think. HIP may be another. However
neither of these is fully documented as a solution to the routing
scaling problem.
SHIM6 may match this class, but it does not provide proper multihoming,
with ease of choosing a new ISP, as we are trying to achieve with a
scalable routing solution.
MB> Shim6 does not requires changes in the APIs nor in the
applications. So under the definition included in the page, SHIM6 is
not a strategy B proposal.. Second, i certainly don't agree with the
statement that shim6 does not provides multihoming.
In addition, i think ProxyShim6 is likely to fit in a strategy B proposal.
Finally, there are tons of geo aggregation proposals, since Deering's
metro addressing, IXP based addressing, Iljitsch geo addressing.
Regards, marcelo
Robin Whittle <[email protected]> dijo:
Here is a page:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/rrgarch/
in which I attempt to match proposals to Bill's Summary of architectures:
http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/rrgarch/
Please let me know via the list of any suggestions for improving this.
- Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
--
----
MARCELO BAGNULO BRAUN
WebCartero
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
