[rrg] Small v Large networks - 1 solution for both, 2 separate solutions etc.

[Laurent Toutain]

Hi Eliot,

Instead of renumbering, auto-configuration can be a more generic approach.
In SIGCOMM 2007 IPv6 workshop we proposed a solution for small sites
auto-configuration (
http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2007/ipv6/1569041157.pdf). This paper
proposed an extension to OSPF, but it can be easily adapted to RIP. It can
help also to solve one part of the multi-homing problem, i.e. route packets
toward the provider which assigned the prefix used in the source address of
the packet.

Laurent

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 07:58, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Robin,
>
>>                 Eliot's suggestion (as I understand it) to exclude
>>                 larger end-user networks from the (presumably)
>>                 renumbering based solution for smaller networks
>>                 would still leave many "smaller" networks way too
>>                 big for "routine" renumbering.
>>
>>
>
> Again, let's separate the problem from the solution.  To put it another
> way, home and SMB networks really don't even have an option today to be
> multihomed (at least not at the network layer), and so whatever growth we're
> seeing today in the routing table is strictly that of larger institutions,
> and related traffic engineering and (to a lesser extent) disaggregation to
> protect large prefixes.
>
> If one solution can fit all, all the better.  One is better than two, all
> other things being equal.  Whether they are or not is a fair question.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eliot
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg at irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.irtf.org/pipermail/rrg/attachments/20081029/17b59aa2/attachment.htm>