Good comment. 
 
In general, I don't understand the the problem definition.
If the focus, is backbone scalabillity caused by site-multihooming then
the problem space are very static. 
Therefore, an approach with predefined provider adresses space could be
pretty simple. 
One may also find a solutions that makes the mapping very simplistic
from an implementation point-of-viow.
 
-Lasse


________________________________

        From: Juan Jose Adan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
        Sent: den 11 mars 2008 09:19
        To: Geoff Huston
        Cc: Lixia Zhang; Lars Westberg; [email protected]
        Subject: Re: [RRG] yetAnotherProposal: AS-number forwarding
        
        
        Hi Geoff,
         
        >Dunno how much all this helps the world other than illustrate
(a) that
        >AS-based routing is probably too coarse and you may want a
finer level
        >of granularity in terms of division of forwarding elements and
(b) all
        >of this is well covered ground.
        
        I think AS-based routing does not necessarily imply that
        we have to use just a locator per AS, but the locators'
        structure will have to be based on the AS number.
         
        (I will use 2-byte AS numbers to better explain this).
         
        Let's suppose we want to send traffic to a server A having
        an IP address within the "identifier prefix" of a stub AS
        connected to a transit provider whose ASN=1. Let's also
        suppose that we use the "locator prefix" 240.0.1.0/24 to
        send tunneled traffic towards AS1 (second and third bytes
        are the AS number). It means that the outer IP address
        would be 240.0.1.0.
         
        For server B having an IP address in a different "identifier
        prefix", AS1 could announce a second "locator prefix", for
        example 240.0.1.128/25, so that traffic sent to server B
        would be tunneled with the outer IP address 240.0.1.128.
         
        And AS1 would announce these two "locator prefixes", namely
        240.0.1.0/24 and 240.0.1.128/25, in different ways to the
        rest of the Internet.
         
        And this exercise can be made finer and finer so that an
        "identifier prefix" could be assigned a "locator prefix"
        such as 240.0.1.77/32.
         
        Therefore AS-based routing can be used with a very fine
        level of granularity I think.
         
        Regards,
        Juanjo
         
        -----

         

Reply via email to