Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] Re: [lir-wg] IXP networks routing

[Gert Doering <]

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:05:34AM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> > PRIVATE INTERCONNECTS. Real world example follows, which is why my primary
> > employer has a PI assignment; we interconnect using IPsec VPNs and some
> > leased lines with a number of other enterprises. We use RFC1918
> *internally*
> > and so do many others. What addressing scheme would you suggest we use to
> > talk, especially as we DO NOT want this traffic to accidentally leak onto
> > the public internet ?
> 
> I notice that my reply has been conveniently ignored. 

Not due to malevolence, but just due to "good point. I need to think about 
this" reasons.

> Well, how will you address this issue in the *real* world ?

I'm unsure.  One could use site-local addressing, but of course as with
RFC1918 addressing, the chances are high that you run into collisions.

For this specific case, using non-routeable PI is also a workable 
approach.  The tricky thing is the "non-routeable" part - the main problem
with PI is "routing table growth" (and the associated "AS number burn"),
which would not apply here.

So maybe we need to add specific PI clauses, or let's call it differently,
"non-routeable globally unique IP(v6) addresses".

If we do this, we need to be careful to point out that this is *not*
"the multihoming solution", but a very specific corner case that can not
be properly tackled by aggregateable PA space.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  57021 (57147)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299