Re: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

[Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>>>>> "Michel" == Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> writes:
    Michel> Pekka,

    >>> Michel Py wrote: This would create a terrible precedent. In the long
    >>> run, we can expect: - People that have swamp space lobbying for v6 PI
    >>> also, on the grounds that if people that have an ASN get v6 PI space
    >>> they should get it too. Actually, swamp space holders have on paper a
    >>> better reason than ASN holders to get v6 PI space.

    >> Pekka Savola wrote: Uhh, what do you mean by swamp space holders,
    >> those that don't have ASN? Multihomers that use private ASN's or
    >> static routing and have their primary ISP advertise a more specific?

    Michel> Someone please debunk me if I'm wrong, but I think that swamp
    Michel> space was allocated without the current restrictions of either
    Michel> having a distinct routing policy or being multihomed. This means
    Michel> that they are a few guys that still have swamp space (a class C,
    Michel> for the most part) and don't have an AS. These guys are not

  No, I disagree with what you wrote.
  I think that there are huge numbers of people who have swamp space, but do
not have an AS. There are even many tier-3 ISPs with /19s from >204 class C
space that do not have ASs, as they've only ever been single homed ISPs.

  There are lots of AS#s which as not really in use anymore (or should not be
in use) following merges and acquisitions. They continue to be out there, though.

  The AS proposal certainly results in a much smaller DFZ than if we handed
every holder of PI IPv4 space PI space in IPv6. 

  Having said all of this, there are also lots of organizations that
currently possess PI space (a university with a class B for instance) that
are currently not multihomed (and may not even speak BGP), but practice
serial-multihoming - they switch ISPs without renumbering.

  Finally, we have an increasing number of places that have "multihomed"
because they got PA IPv4 space from two (or more providers) and advertise
www.example.com under two IP addresses. Very confusing to their customers who
do not have smart web proxies: site doesn't work, shift-reload, site
works. Click, site doesn't work. shift-reload, site works. 
  I have recently moved one to proper multihoming, and they are much
happier. I would very much like to have given them some kind of PI IPv6
space. As it is, they have 6to4 based IPv6 space numbered from their PI IPv4
space. 

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQCVAwUBPjqSSYqHRg3pndX9AQHdfQP+JbyBKuEy87YbalmXxVKMmAcecLMLLJ45
ZrCvABQRZUlgHsMumh4+yGsk+ZjCgp1OkXsEDNS30RWhxPMhFe/6umIp8lxX+656
0uzA9jn5ZCRULA12QfLYoL+QlX6NMRNzpf5gwpaZcMMdtXJmntMESnl0tomxoQin
XYJK3N5X5rQ=
=U9GJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----