Re: [lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 07:59:08 +0200
Anyone that wants to have a glimpse of what the IETF is going to do
for
them is encouraged to read Kurtis' own draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kurtis-multihoming-
longprefix-
00.txt
Which basically says that we should allow /48 prefixes punched from PA
space in the Global Routing Table. I am sure the educated reader that
I don't think this is a workable solution. Because:
* it doesn't actually solve the problem - in fact it gets worse as you
Absolutely!
de-aggregate PA space and force it throughout the Internet. I don't
see the advantage of announcing PA /48s under other providers as
oposed to
giving people PI space, I see however problems in a future where /48s
starts getting filtered and multihoming is silently broken.
That is one possible scenario. The draft is written from the outset
that I am currently more worried that we will never reach 1k routes of
IPv6, and that this is a sign of no wider adoption. Trends from Gerts
data are showing some improvement, but there is still quite a bit to go.
* it depends on what ASs 2 hops away from me do. If somewhere along the
way someone summarizes my "main" provider's routes sudenly the chunk
of
Internet behind him will start using the more specific. Don't forget
we're
talking about selling service here and with this scenario I can't
garantee
my clients the connectivity I'm selling them will actually be used.
Agreed.
* it makes it particularly hard to change providers quickly. By all
means this is lock-in to the primary provider.
Agreed.
Summing, I think this despite masking the problem in the short run
it has enough problems of its own to not be adopted commercially.
Yes. But it's approach. Seriously I think that what will help us get
out of the current dead-lock is a agreed path to a final solution. As I
recently said on the multi6 list, I used to believe in a phased
approach, but I have shifted and come to realize that the only thing
that will work in the end is that we from the start work on the
permanent solution. Otherwise we will keep adding patches forever.
The document claims,
"The third advantage of this model is that this mirrors existing
operating practices in the IPv4 world.",
not quite - if I allocate a /24 to a costumer they will not announce
it to
another provider. If they do, the other provider will most likely
filter
it based on whois/registrar database entries. This could probably be
solved for the proposed scenario but it seems like a kludge.
This is not true. This is done quite regularly.
- kurtis -
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature
