I see, thanks. > So what the IXPs are trying to do, is nexthop translation. The route server > puts all the routes into the same table, and when announcing to the “other > flavor”, the route server translates the next hop according to a > pre-configured table (addressing in the IXPs is usually fixed) to match the > peers’ expectations.
If I read you right, this is equivalent to having a redundant routing table, with two routes to each prefix (one pure IPv4, one v4-via-v6), and using filtering rules so that every client receives just one route to each prefix. Is that right? > And the thing is that we definitely want the two alternative nexthops to > always yield the same link address. I'm sure you're right (you usually are, at least as far as routing is concerned), but I'm struggling to see where this requirement comes from. If the redundant table is loop-free, then the filtered sub-tables will still be loop-free, right? So your claim would seem to imply that the only way to build a loop-free redundant routing table is to ensure that redundant routes map to the same MAC address, which I don't believe is true. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- int-area@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to int-area-le...@ietf.org
