Re: [RRG] Renumbering...

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

Tony: this all sounds good.

Scott

On 9/3/08 6:57 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
> |OK, I now understand that when you say PI you mean a globally routed,
> |non-aggregated address prefix.  Yes?
> 
> Yes, that's where the conversation started.
> 
> |However, I think the essential point here is not "PI" (provider
> |independence).  Rather, it's the trade-off between non-aggregation and
> |being globally routed.  One or the other needs to be controlled by some
> |means.  Even PA prefixes should either be aggregated or have their
> |routing constrained.
> 
> I hope everyone here agrees that the only way to achieve scalability is
> through aggregation.  ;-)
> 
> |We can look at the different classes of approach to limiting one or the
> |other, to see which one causes the least pain.  I believe that anything
> |that requires *site* renumbering in order to switch upstream providers
> |is going to be hard to swallow.  
> 
> Our current consensus poll would seem to agree with you.
> 
> |That includes any approach 
> |that uses PA
> |addresses within a site, i.e. any approach that aggregates instead of
> |limiting scope, and where an endpoint knows an external prefix 
> |for itself.
> 
> Yes, but can we please stop saying 'address' unless we truly _mean_ a
> classical address, with both identifier and location semantics?
> 
> |At first glance that would mean at least Handley/Trilogy/Multipath
> |(unless modified) and the IPv6 loc/id split ones except GSE where the
> |"routing goop" in incoming packets is zeroed out at the network edge.
> 
> More precisely, a loc/id split solution where the host must know its own
> locators is going to have an issue.  Agree on the transport solutions.
> 
> |Once you have decided to limit routing scope, there is no reason for
> |your site-internal addressing not to be "provider-independent" (strict
> |meaning).
> 
> 
> That depends on the limits of the scope.  If the scope is still global in
> some way, then you continue to have scalability issues.  For example, if you
> have a VPN that is full of unaggregated site prefixes, you'll still have
> scalability issues.  If you limit your scope further, such as to the site
> (ala RFC 1918 addressing), then yes, you're effectively
> "provider-indepenent".
> 
> Tony
> 

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg