On 22 Oct 2014, at 21:16, Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 22, 2014, at 12:06 PM, David Lamparter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:40:33PM +0200, David Lamparter wrote: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-routing-extra-qualifiers/?include_text=1 >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing/?include_text=1 > > Speaking strictly for myself, I’m not sure why homenet is relevant. The > technology is related to networks that have different routing depend on on > one’s use case. A class of solutions for it has been called the “fish” > problem, and built using multi-topology routing. In homenet, it’s called > SADR, and is primarily about egress routing (routing to an egress to an > upstream ISP that gave you a PA prefix). While one doesn’t really want to > confuse theory with practice, in theory it could be used between points of a > network, to prevent folks using one set of prefixes to talk with another set, > or to force routing of some sessions in some ways. > > Personally, those are a class of problems I associate with campus networks > more than residential networks.
I suspect most campus networks will have a single /48 from their NREN, or a /48 PI. I’m not aware of any campuses in the UK which are multi-homed with dual /48, though I understand some Internet2 campuses may be. (As an aside we’ve just run out of our v4 /16…) Homenet has ‘designed in’ future multihoming, which is rare today. In the homenet case the multihoming may presumably be more commonly for different services to the home? Tim
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
