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

Re: draft-savola-multi6-asn-pi-01.txt

On 23-feb-04, at 12:11, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

Well, there are a lot of things you can say about the RIR policies, but
let's take that to some other mailinglist :)

Too many mailinglists, too little time... Also, the fact that the RIRs don't stick to the policy they themselves (+ IANA) published is a very bad thing. I think the IETF has to set stricter boundaries on what the RIRs can and can't do in their policies. But it's no use discussing this in general, we'll talk about it when it gets more concrete.

If we want to break aggregation in a way that doesn't break
scalability then I think we need to put out an RFC that tells people
how to do it, so that it's actually usable (no point in doing this if
network operators filter) and scalable. I think it can be done but
Pekka's draft isn't the way.


I think that the issue of breaking aggregation will have to be part of
the general architectural discussion. Just like any other proposal.

Sure, no problem. But this draft isn't the right way to go about it. I think the solution is to be found in the area of shooting holes in provider aggregates. But we need to get away from the ad-hoc way this is done today which couples a relatively low level of redundancy with a high number of additional entries in the global routing table. The fact that we have more or less fixed ISP aggregate and end-user assignment sizes allows us to filter more aggressively so if we couple this part with a set of "if you're going to allow your customers to multihome, this is what you need to do" rules that should do the trick. I'll be happy to write something down either before Seoul or after.