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

[Måns Nilsson <]

--On Wednesday, March 05, 2003 14:16:09 +0100 Gert Doering gert@localhost
wrote:

> Unfortunately it's not that easy.  It will just change the discussion from
> "I need IPv6 PI address space for my enterprise XYZ" to "I need an AS
> number for my enterprise!".

But don't they already have that? My proposal is exactly the same as the
current need wrt multihoming in v4; you must have an AS number to multihome
to several upstreams -- multihoming inside one provider still can be done 
over OSPF or similar; no need to get a separate allocation for that. 

> I agree that "give every existing AS holder a /32" seems like a very
> elegant solution - but what about *new* ASes?  I think it might create 
> a "land rush" situation in the AS area ("get one while they are still
> easy to get"), which would be very bad.  

Yes, this is a calculated risk. But, the LIRen should of course keep their
strict policies for ASN allocation -- must be visible over several paths
within three months or so, and should stay so, with reevaluation applied.
The cost and cumbersomeness associated with keeping an AS present in
several  paths, combined with a strictly enforced revocation process,
should keep that landslide to thaw levels instead of avalanching. 

> 32 bit AS numbers are possible, yes, but will not solve the core problem.

Not until Moore makes a 2^32 entries large routing table usable. My guess
is that these issues are interdependent -- We will get routers that can
handle these entries when there is an imminent risk that they will be
necessary. 

> It's not that this solution hasn't been proposed before.  I'm just
> convinced that it won't work as a reliable way to scale into the future.

I realise this. It is a calculated risk, based on studies of usage patterns
during the last 10 years of v4 routing. I think that will sort itself out,
if people are exposed to problems as opposed to just discussing horror
scenarios. 

My point is, simply put, that:

* Unless we get some blowtorch applied to the collective Internet 
  posterior wrt v6, the people who state that v6 won't work will be right. 
  I would hate that. 

* The hierarchical routing model used and promoted for v6 so far, seems,
  from the view of this naive bystander, to be designed by someone 
  seriously opposed to practical v6 deployment, much as the Bundeswehr
  uniform is claimed to be designed by a pacifist, with the intent of 
  making war unfeasible... 

* If it due to aggressive optimisation design choices is hard or impossible 
  to get v6 working in an informal but live manner, nobody but a select 
  few at the big operators will be able to play with it outside the 
  tunnel playpen. 

* Thus, there is some value in sacrificing parts of the purity in the 
  interest of gaining momentum and users, meaning more effort will be put 
  into solving the problem. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson            Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC  MN1334-RIPE

We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.

Attachment: pgp00002.pgp
Description: PGP signature