Re: IPv6 Allocation Policy
"Craig A. Huegen" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.apnic.global-v6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <Pine.WNT.4.44.0305211404490.936-100000@chuegen-w2k04.amer.cisco.com> |
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: > So, it seems to me that Cisco would be best using multiple ISP-specific PA > addresses, right? That would seem to solve about all the problems related > to traffic engineering? (You only configure addresses of those ISP's > which are connected to your public service sites -- and each of them gets > there without WAN traffic.) Actually, it would not. Multiple PA prefixes as a solution has far too many problems. I as a network administrator cannot control the traffic flow -- originating hosts get to set the network paths by their choices of source/destination addresses. The network has no visibility into alternate paths for a TCP connection -- only the host does, but the host has no information about preferrable paths on the network. I have to manage extra prefixes on every subnet and carry those multiple prefixes in my IGP. A failure of a circuit at the edge of the network would trigger an amazingly huge state-change wave across the network, withdrawing the prefixes from the interface, then removing them from the IGP. There are just too many problems in a large network like ours to use the multi-PA solution. /cah -- Craig A. Huegen, Chief Network Architect C i s c o S y s t e m s IT Transport, Network Technology & Design || || Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive || || San Jose, CA 95134, (408) 526-8104 |||| |||| email: [email protected] CCIE #2100 ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6