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

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

Joe,

I just want to be sure I understand you.

Are you saying that de-aggrgegation (individual PI or more specifics
of one of the upstream's PA) will continue to be the only multi-homing
solution for those who need advanced TE capabilities?

Are you suggesting that the size of the IPv4 and IPv6 routing system that
results from "traditional IPv4 style" multi-homing will not be a problem
that needs to be solved by some other multi-homing solution that does not
use de-aggregation?

Are you suggesting that hardware is or will be sufficently large to be at
least seven years ahead of the route table growth, and still remain
affordable?

___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, Joe Abley wrote:

> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:36:00 -0400
> From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
> To: Jason Schiller <jason.schiller@mci.com>
> Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, 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 20:05, Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net) wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> The general "but we need TE" noise in response to descriptions of the  
> shim6 effort has been from ISPs and multi-homed enterprises. ISPs  
> have always been able to get PI space. Under this proposed ARIN  
> policy, multi-homed LIRs would also be able to get PI space, and as  
> you point out, the chances are that multi-homed non-LIRs would see  
> reduced resistance to advertising their PA /48s far and wide.
> 
> The small sites which cannot multi-home today in the v4 Internet  
> (e.g. residential users, small offices, mobile users) have no  
> expectation of TE, and they have no IT department who wants to stamp  
> a policy on the way they shift packets. Their upstream networks have  
> no real expectation of being able to do TE on behalf of those users  
> either, beyond whatever routine exercises they perform in response to  
> traffic which is already directed by the host (e.g. opportunistic  
> peer-to-peer traffic).
> 
> If this last category is to be the remaining constituency for a multi- 
> homing solution, and if shim6 design continues and there is  
> deployment, then I would say the one benefit of the ARIN policy from  
> the point of view of designers in this working group is that the  
> nebulous and ill-defined requirement for TE can finally be thrown  
> away :-)
> 
> 
> Joe
>