IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Multihoming Issues

David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com> Fri, 30 August 2002 21:51 UTC

Received: from loki.ietf.org (loki [10.27.2.29]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06988; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from adm@localhost) by loki.ietf.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA09461 for ietf-outbound.09@loki.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:34:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [10.27.2.28]) by loki.ietf.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA09437 for <ietf-mainout@loki.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:33:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id RAA06447 for ietf-mainout@loki.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:31:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to owner-ietf@ietf.org using -f
Received: from shell.nominum.com (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA06440; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:31:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [128.177.194.107] (shell.nominum.com [128.177.192.160]) by shell.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAD9137F04; Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.0.2006
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:33:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Multihoming Issues
From: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Sister Sibling <ccs522g9@yahoo.com>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, iesg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <B99532A9.1160D%david.conrad@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20020830095509.07527190@mira-sjcm-4.cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fred,

On 8/30/02 10:16 AM, "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> It seems like routing tables and DNS are separate discussions - one is
> about routes and prefixes, and one is about names.

Not sure of the basis for the original comment, but see the (dearly
departed, may they rest in peace) A6 RRs.

> Whereas today the RIRs
> hand out relatively short prefixes with a view to forcing the use of NATs
> in edge networks,

Interesting perception.  Can you provide some reference as to why you
believe this?

> In such a scenario, in your favorite location in the network, there should be:
> 
> - one prefix for each ISP in the world
> - one prefix for each POP or campus in your network
> - one prefix for each LAN in your POP or Campus
> - additional prefixes that you decide to carry for your own reasons (eg,
> policy)

My, that's a lot of prefixes.  I'm sure I'm missing something here.

Rgds,
-drc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email