Re: PI/metro/geo [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> > > Very few non-ISP organizations do this, as it requires them to move
> > > traffic over their internal network which costs money, while receiving
> > > the traffic where it eventually needs to be usually doesn't cost more
> > > than receiving it at any other location.
> 
> > Our samples spaces must be different.  I think that many non-ISP
> > organisations
> > multi-home via different providers on either sides of North America.
> 
> It is certainly possible we're seeing different things from the places
> we're sitting. But the real question isn't whether they _connect_ on
> opposite ends of a continent or ocean, but whether they need to announce
> a globally visible route in both locations. This is only absolutely
> necessary if they prefer traffic to flow over their internal network
> rather than over an ISP network. It is also desireable for backup
> purposes but I feel this isn't an important enough reason to allow it.

Sorry, but that's not acceptable. Failover/backup is exactly why
such enterprises need this. As somebody else said, there aren't that many
multicontinental megacompanies that giving them unique prefixes is going to
significantly inflate the default table. The case we need to worry about
is hundreds of thousands of smaller, more local enterprises that
nevertheless need failover; we can't afford each of them to add a prefix.
But at current course and speed, that's where we're headed.

   Brian