David Conrad wrote:
Keith,
On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:19 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
The point is only that sooner
or later there will be pushback associated with routing pain, and when
that pushback happens people will look to solve their problems in other
ways.
Yes. The solution chosen in the past has been to deploy route
filters. I'm not sure why this wouldn't be the solution in the
future. Of course, the downside of route filters is that increasing
portions of the Internet will be unreachable. So it goes.
Either that, or there's some fallback route to a shorter prefix which
leads to a (replicated and possibly federated) service that knows how to
tunnel the traffic to the destination. In other words, you can minimize
routing complexity and routing table size by making routes less optimal
and eating more bandwidth for the actual traffic.
Of course that forwarding service will cost money, and be subject to
failures of various kinds. And it's hard to build such a service that
is federated according to the preferences of those holding PI or ULA
prefixes. They can change ISPs, but their ability to have a stable
address prefix that is generally reachable is still going to be
dependent on some specific outside party that they can't change. This
is true no matter what scheme is used for maintaining the mapping table
and what scheme is used for mapping between the stable prefix and the
current destination - whether it be BGP extensions, DNS or whatever.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf