Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

["Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)" <jason.schiller@mci.com>]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Although fewer people qualify under this policy
> (you need to qualify for an IPv4 block and the smallest ones that
> ARIN gives out are /20s so few people do, AFAIK) than would be able
> to use shim6, I think it's safe to say that with policies like this
> in place shim6 will be dead in the water.

Iljitsch,

I'd like to point out that if people think that PI (and placing 1 or
more routes in the global Internet routing table) is an acceptable
solution to multi-homing, then it is also likely that more specifics of PA
space to support multi-homing is also acceptable, and likely to happen.

This removes the fact that few people would be able to multi-home in the
traditional sense.

So there are only two questions:

1. Is there sufficent need to continue shim6 for a no-frills easy
multi-homing solution for consumer and small business customers that can't
or won't support BGP?

2. Are people concerned with the long term implacations of de-aggrgegation
for multi-homing, and if so, then should we pursue a protocol solution
that has full support for TE in an effort to replace de-aggrgegation as a
solution and halt (or possibly reverse) the growth of the routing table?


BTW, I was one of six people who voted against moving forward with PI.

___Jason

==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller@uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller@verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:58:27 +0200
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
> To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
> Cc: shim6-wg <shim6@psg.com>, iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
> 
> On 13-apr-2006, at 23:38, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> > Apologies for the circuitous, tangled path of forwarding below. I  
> > wasn't in the meeting, so I can't comment on the support that  
> > Thomas describes.
> 
> > If end-site PI assignments for anybody who wants to multi-home come  
> > to pass at ARIN, and if the other RIRs follow suit, then there  
> > would seem to be a limited opportunity for future deployment of  
> > shim6 (or, at least, substantially reduced demand for it).
> 
> > There are still the basement multi-homers who prefer not to become  
> > RIR members, of course :-)
> 
> Now obviously the IESG has in the past felt that multi6 and shim6  
> work was valuable. Although fewer people qualify under this policy  
> (you need to qualify for an IPv4 block and the smallest ones that  
> ARIN gives out are /20s so few people do, AFAIK) than would be able  
> to use shim6, I think it's safe to say that with policies like this  
> in place shim6 will be dead in the water. Pursuing both seems a big  
> waste of time. So I suggest that the IESG either:
> 
> 1. Tells ARIN that this policy is incompatible with work inside the  
> IETF so it shouldn't be adopted, or
> 
> 2. Conclude shim6.
> 
> Iljitsch
>