Re: Multihoming Issues

[David Conrad <[e-mail]>]

Simon,

On 9/1/02 7:30 AM, "Simon Leinen" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> - 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.
> Probably - note how the scope gets narrower as you go down to smaller
> parts of the Internet.

Well, yeah, but if you want to gain full benefit of multi-homing, each of
these prefixes would need global visibility, no?

> In the IPv4 Internet, you have all of the above, plus
> - many prefixes assigned to most ISPs in the world after they used up
> their first assignment
> - many "campus" prefixes around the world that haven't been assigned
> according to ISP topology (such as legacy Class B/Cs)
> - many prefixes for "campuses" around the world that changed or added
> ISPs but kept addresses from their original provider's range.
> 
> Looks like IPv6 won't have the first two of these.  We'll see what
> will happen to the third category.

I would agree with the first of these.  I am skeptical regarding the second
-- having seen what sort of organizations became "ISPs" when CIDR
restrictions were imposed make me a bit cynical.  As for the third, I
suspect enforcement of renumbering implied by your statement guarantees
NATv6.

Rgds,
-drc