[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Jun 22 14:26:40 CEST 2004
Hi, On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:16:40AM -0400, Nils Ketelsen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:45:29AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > > > This doesn't fly. He can't set his own routing policy and he can't > > > multihome. If he changes the single upstream his customers needs to > > > renumber. > > As of today, "more-specific BGP multihoming" works. So he *can* set > > his own routing policy. > > Maybe I have lost you somewhere now: You only get an assignement when you > are a big one (>200 customers). Yes. > That is to keep the routing table smaller. "Because the community wanted to have it this way". > Because that does not work for small ISPs (see above) they announce a route > for a smaller network (that was assigned to him from his upstream provider). > > So we have one /32 route less, one /40 route more or something like that. > Doesn't seem to save much space in the routing table? Not that much. One could apply more-specific filters to routes coming from other regions, so it *would* save something. Or the customer might eventually decide to cease to multihome, and the more-specific gets folded back into the aggregate - and this *does* happen, two of our customers did this in the past couple of years, and we're not one of the "really big" ISPs. [..] > > Admittedly, if changing the upstream, his customers would need to be > > renumbered (but this is not too different from IPv4 today with > > "very small ISPs that do not want to become LIR" - they use upstream > > space for a couple of years, and eventually become LIR and have to > > renumber). > > It is an absolute pain in the ass. And it will be in the future. Yes, the > mechanisms to make it easy are in place, but they are not implemented. > Renumbering is NOT EASY. It costs a hell lot of money, each time it has to > be done. Announcing your routes to the whole world also costs "a hell of a lot of money". Not your money, of course, but everyone elses. So pain needs to be balanced. > > I can see that people don't like it, I'm just mentioning that it *could* > > be done. We will need to do something like that for the class "is ISP > > but is not LIR", even if we abandon the 200-users rule. > > I would change that to "is mutlihomed but is not LIR". Even without being an > ISP you can easily run into the same problems. And I do not want to be in > charge at Siemens, GM, Nortel, Cisco or so for renumbering projects. So what is your propsal for a new policy, then? "Everybody who is special gets their own allocation?" Which makes it very simple, as long as you can define "special". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]