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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf