[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)

Well, what I meant was that the day an ISP run out of their PI blocks
they will just continue down the address block, just as ISPs today are
announcing more specifics than their RIR allocation and complaining
that these are not accepted. I don't see why we think people would
behave differently just because this is IPv6....

We think that because they do. At the moment, at least. Also, we want
them to, as current IPv4 routing practices aren't exactly great. On the
one hand it is good that people want to keep the IPv6 routing table
clean, on the other hand we don't want to be so restrictive it doesn't
work. Remember that most people have a good reason to pollute the IPv4
routing table. Just not allowing this without offering alternatives
isn't good enough.
Well, let me restate what I said in Atlanta:

1) We have no idea how popular multihoming is in reality. If it turns out my DLS subscriber charges me $50 a month for a single homed connection and $500 a month for multihoming this might not be as popular as we think. One thing I think we must realize is that a) IPv6 will be more expensive that IPv4, b) multihoming will not be for free.

2) We don't understand what effects the "better starting point" with aggregation will have on the routing table.

What I suggest will give us experience with the above and then we have some facts to discuss around. Today we only have wet dreams.

Disagree. People who multihome care about their connectivity more than
others. For PI, 90% isn't enough. 99% isn't even enough. On the other
hand, for shooting holes in PA, having a 90% backup is probably good
enough, but I'd rather have 99% or even 100%, especially if I have to
eat the cost and annoyance of renumbering when changing my primary ISP.

Uhm so you support my proposal then? Makeing it a requirement to accept the longer prefixes would help - right?



Still, I agree that if

we can come up with a common solution that would be better. My 
proposal

is to accept /48 for the time being and not scale back until there is 
a

new solution.


I could live with that if we can get consensus among operators. Without
those /48s in the routing table this is still too risky as it doesn't
protect you against an entire ISP going down.




I don't think the operators are a problem here. Finding enough 
operators to actually connect the customers are a problem, not the 
prefix length.




Also, if we end up with a multi-address solution, it could very well be

that all PA will be tied to interconnect locations. For instance, I 
live

between two of the largest exchange points in the world: the LINX and

the AMS-IX. If I were a single homed multi-address capable network I

would want addresses that are always routed over the LINX and also

addresses that are always routed over the AMS-IX, so I can do traffic

engineering.



Having been one of the largest operators connected to both AMS-IX and 
Linx, I would not want this. But most people probably agree. I would 
have asked for the traffic flowing over the private peerings.




What is it that we think we gain with these specific blocks, be it for
site-locals or multihoming? The number of routes are not going to be
less.



This way you can easily identify these routes with a prefix filter. I'm
not saying that's always absolutely necessary, but as long as we have
the choice, why not create this option?




But if we introduce prefix filters we lost the entire idea of creating 
these in the first place.








BTW, I'm writing an article about if/when IPv6 will be adopted for a

Dutch magazine. I'm still looking for good quotes from IPv6-skeptics.  
:-)





I am not necessary an IPv6 sceptic. I just don't think it will give us 
peace in the middle-east. Contact me offline if you want to talk more. 
MY GSM number is in my RIPE object.



- kurtis -