[Cerowrt-devel] Cerowrt-devel Digest, Vol 31, Issue 4
dave.taht at gmail.com
Sat Jun 7 15:07:33 EDT 2014
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Mike O'Dell <mo at ccr.org> wrote:
> Having links from multiple providers "just work" is indeed a grand idea.
> Unfortunately, IPv6 doesn't deal with multihoming any better than IPv4 doesn't;
> in fact, it's pretty clearly worse.
> you can get the bath water to run out a different hole by tipping
> the bathtub, but you can't make in run *into* the bathtub the same way.
Enter source-sensitive routing, with working implementations for both
babel and ospfv3.
(and a couple drafts and papers related to it that I can dig up
if you like - like this one:
We've needed this technology for ages, and it seems to work
magnificently. I hope
this summer to complete an example network with 5 upstreams...
makes mptcp "just work" too.
It does mean that you need hosts to have one ipv6 address per
possible egress point, but that basically already happens on
cellphones with wifi and 3g interfaces already.
Related work is the mdns-sd stuff to make mdns scale well
on home and campus networks.
> I agree that nested NATs are suboptimal and usually unnecessary.
Detecting when not to use nat via a standardized process would be
good. Also in the offing.
> As for falling off the cliff of bridging, it depends entirely
> on how far you fall and what you land upon.
> The fundamental problem is that the L2 fabric needs dynamic routing
> more sophisticated than a Spanning Tree. It's not hard to do and
There are ISIS fans in homenet. Also batman.
> is quite effective at solving the problems of transiting local
> dynamic topology without annoying the L3 machinery. It even provides
> for traffic engineering of different traffic types without having
> to suffer through the myriad NO-OPs created by the IETF trying to solve
> the problem in a network flat as road-kill on an Interstate.
More information about the Cerowrt-devel