Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

El 11/08/2004, a las 19:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:

> Hi Eric,
>
> On 11-aug-04, at 18:13, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
>
>> Newbie question: Assuming a multihomed environment with N ISPs 
>> supporting a corporate network of 2K+ routers and 200K+ computers. Is 
>> multi6 proposing that the interfaces of the routers and computers 
>> each have N different global addresses, one set for each of the N 
>> ISPs?
>
> At this time, multi6 isn't exactly proposing anything. But yes, pretty 
> much everything that's under discussion right now assumes this.
>
>> If so, has multi6 considered the impact of this approach to IGP and 
>> EGP performance? If so, what was the consensus conclusion to that 
>> evaluation?
>
> There hasn't been an evaluation.
>
> There is a feature that I'm very much in favor of that could help 
> here: the ability to implement a multihoming solution in middleboxes 
> or border routers. In such a scenario, there would be a set of 
> addresses for internal use in the site, and the proxy multihoming 
> devices add the multihoming capability somewhere close to the border 
> of the network. The good thing here is that there is no need to modify 
> each individual host to obtain multihoming benefits, and it's easier 
> to implement policy in a few central places rather than distributed 
> over all the hosts in the network.
>


Well, even if you do a per host locator selection you can still manage 
policy in a centralized fashion, if we define proper mechanisms to 
perform policy distribution, for instance a dhcp option for 
distributing RFC3484 policy table or something similar. However, i 
don't know how you can enforce policy in a centralized manner when 
locator selection is performed by the end hosts.

anyway, i agree that proxys are attractive, especially for supporting 
advanced features like session survivability in legacy hosts

regards, marcelo
>