Re: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> > - AS numbers being extended to 32 bits. Then people that get ASNs above
> > 64k will also strongly lobby to get PI on the grounds that it's not
> > fair that early adopters only get it.

> It's still a size we can handle.

32 bits??? I don't think so...

> > If we had no other choice, I would support this as being not as bad as
> > unrestricted PI. But it's still unaggregatable, and we do have a better
> > choice: GAPI.

> It's fast and it works. Go for it.

I hope you're talking about GAPI here.

The whole ASN == PI thing doesn't work because every multihomer can get
an AS number so every multihomer can get PI space so we're right back at
square one.

A much better way to do this would be to take the globally unique site
local addresses for this. We can give two blocks of globally unique site
local addresses to each organization that wants them: one that is
guaranteed to be non-routable, and one that may or may not be routable.
Then we agree to all carry the first X 10k worth of those globally
unique potentially routable site local address blocks (GUPRSLABs?). When
the number of those prefixes in the v6 table hits 20k, 40k, 60k or
whatever, all bets are off and either we have built some MHAP-like
mechanism to map from these PI addresses to PA addresses or we admit
failure and go back to v4. Or we assign these addresses geographically
and start doing geographical aggregation if we can't come up with
anything better before the v6 table explodes.