On 08 Jun 2010, at 14:38 , Patrick Frejborg wrote: > The outcome is that there are a bunch of exit points, > there could be easily four to ten peering points > and the internal routing becomes complex.
Interior routing doesn't have to be so complex, even with that many exterior peering points. I certainly know of sites that have been handling that range of exterior peers for more than 20 years, without having unusual complexity within their interior routing. There must be some other reasons that the site you describe has chosen to have complex interior routing. > So if you could have concurrent multiple paths > from the hosts towards the customers via specific exits ... The issue of concurrent multiple paths to exist an end site is not new. Using ILNP does not make that issue any worse than today. So this really is not an ILNP-unique issue. Instead, it is a separate issue, which is why I've moved this discussion into its own thread. The "Border Router Discovery Protocol" that Teco Boot is already working to standardise within the IETF is an interesting technology that appears able to help with these issues (for existing deployed IP networks, and for ILNP). Whilst BRDP's origins are in the MANET world, its applicability/utility seem to be very much broader -- including totally fixed non-mobile/non-MANET environments. BRDP enables the interior of a site to have better information about the currently available set of upstream links/ site border routers. BRDP has been presented at a past Routing RG meeting, and is also discussed in RFC-5887 on "Renumbering Still Needs Work". Google found this presentation to the Routing RG: <http://www.inf-net.nl/IETF73%20-%20BRDP%20Based%20Routing%20-%20RRG.pdf> (NB: I would not be surprised if BRDP has evolved since that briefing was created.) Cheers, Ran _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
