Philip Homburg wrote:
which means an end system should have a full routing table, IGP
metrics in which tell the end system what is the best address of
its multihomed peer. Full routing table should and can, of course,
be small.
Even in the unlikely case that it would be feasible to give every host a
complete copy of the DFZ routing table...
With RFC2374, DFZ of IPv6 has at most 8192 entries.
That still would leave a lot of issues open...
1) End-to-end latency. Maybe some future generation BGP provides that, but
that doesn't help now.
Your requirement can be fair, only with a routing protocol
supporting latency based routing for *an* address with
*multiple* paths to its destination.
There is no point to have a latency based selection of
multiple paths to the destination, only if the destination
has multiple addresses.
2) For 6to4, the use of anycase. You probably need a link-state routing
protocol to allow a host to figure out which relays are going to be used
on
a give path.
With anycast, you can use only a single relay. Instead, you can
compare metrics between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses of a host.
3) Filters in firewalls. I'd love to see a routing protocol that reports the
settings of all firewalls in the world :-)
Are you saying filtering of firewalls can be disabled by proper
address selection?
4) Other performance metrics, like jitter, packets loss, etc.
See 1).
Maybe you can do some experiments and report on how well your draft works for
deciding when to prefer a 6to4 address over IPv4.
A problem is that there is no point to stick to IPv6 broken
so much.
But, it's not my problem.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf