[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

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