Tony: this all sounds good. Scott
On 9/3/08 6:57 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote: > |OK, I now understand that when you say PI you mean a globally routed, > |non-aggregated address prefix. Yes? > > Yes, that's where the conversation started. > > |However, I think the essential point here is not "PI" (provider > |independence). Rather, it's the trade-off between non-aggregation and > |being globally routed. One or the other needs to be controlled by some > |means. Even PA prefixes should either be aggregated or have their > |routing constrained. > > I hope everyone here agrees that the only way to achieve scalability is > through aggregation. ;-) > > |We can look at the different classes of approach to limiting one or the > |other, to see which one causes the least pain. I believe that anything > |that requires *site* renumbering in order to switch upstream providers > |is going to be hard to swallow. > > Our current consensus poll would seem to agree with you. > > |That includes any approach > |that uses PA > |addresses within a site, i.e. any approach that aggregates instead of > |limiting scope, and where an endpoint knows an external prefix > |for itself. > > Yes, but can we please stop saying 'address' unless we truly _mean_ a > classical address, with both identifier and location semantics? > > |At first glance that would mean at least Handley/Trilogy/Multipath > |(unless modified) and the IPv6 loc/id split ones except GSE where the > |"routing goop" in incoming packets is zeroed out at the network edge. > > More precisely, a loc/id split solution where the host must know its own > locators is going to have an issue. Agree on the transport solutions. > > |Once you have decided to limit routing scope, there is no reason for > |your site-internal addressing not to be "provider-independent" (strict > |meaning). > > > That depends on the limits of the scope. If the scope is still global in > some way, then you continue to have scalability issues. For example, if you > have a VPN that is full of unaggregated site prefixes, you'll still have > scalability issues. If you limit your scope further, such as to the site > (ala RFC 1918 addressing), then yes, you're effectively > "provider-indepenent". > > Tony > -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
