[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jorgensen
rogerj at jorgensen.no
Sat Apr 22 12:34:04 CEST 2006
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote: great idea, finaly others that also have thought baout it... however, yeah it's a great change of the way Internet are and exist, and work... but it's doable. Guess the ISP just hate the idea tho... <snip> > > Now that is a very interesting suggestion. If you assume > that multiple peering points in a single city have rich > and cheap interconnection, you could extend this idea > to one prefix per city with a population greater than > 100,000. There are about 5000 such cities in the world > so we are talking about 5000 prefixes. Of course, each > of these cities serves a larger surrounding area with > various services and such services often reach across > national borders. For instance, the inhabitants of Kehl > and Offenburg in Germany are likely to use services in > Strasbourg, France such as the Opera du Rhin, shopping, > etc. > > If you consider these large cities as centres of gravity > for the surrounding area, then these 5000 cities cover > almost all of the populated surface of the Earth. What > could we do with 5000 such routes in the global routing > table? > > Well, for one thing, we could offer an almost unlimited > number of PI IPv6 address blocks to ever business or > organization that feels the need to multihome in order > to secure the separacy plus resiliency that need in > their network connections. All of those PI blocks would > be invisible in 4999 of the world's cities because those > cities will only see the single city prefix. We then have > solved the routing table scaling problem by dividing > and conquering. There still could be some localised issues > in some cities, but it is much simpler for a group of > local ISPs to sort out a local issue than it is for everybody > in the world to agree on the one true routing solution. > > The best part of this solution is that it requires no > protocol changes, no new code in routers, and works with > all existing IPv6 technology. It can be implemented entirely > by changing RIR allocation rules, and ISP business practices. > This is not a "flag day" situation either. There is no need > to stop issuing and using provider aggregatable addresses. > These new geo-topo aggregatable addresses can coexist in the > same network. Some ISPs will choose to only assign one kind > of addresses, either classic PA or new geo-topo addresses. Others > will use both and use the newer ones to provide new services. > > The only area where business practices needs to change is > inside a single city aggregate where the ISPs inside that > aggregate have to agree on how to exchange traffic and how > to deal with the hot-potato nature of geo-topo routing. > Each city is free to come up with its own variation on this > as long as they do not deaggregate the city aggregate address > block outside of bilateral peering agreements. In other words, > ISPs in London will see only a single route to all of the geo-topo > space in Paris unless they have specific bilateral agreements > with Paris ISPs. > > Remember we have reserved 7/8ths of the IPv6 address space in > order to be able to implement these types of new addressing schemes. > The main problem to be solved in order to deploy this, other > than general agreement on the scheme, is how to size each of the > 5000 city aggregate blocks. Geographers and economists would likely > find this easy work, but we have to make contact with them, explain > the problem, and ask for their analyses. > > > Won't take long until the first ISPs fall. And then more and more will > have > > to. There is no strong community, apart from those customers with > > lots-o-money. > > Most businesses only survive and thrive because they serve their > customers well. Any ISP that expects to have a strong future must > understand the needs of their customer base and then organize their > company resources to serve those customers. This means that ISPs who > see this as a battle of the PROVIDERS (with PA addresses) against the > END USERS (with subnets assigned from PA blocks) are doomed. Providers > have to look at this problem from the end user point of view and then > find some solution that meets the end user needs while at the same > time offering the ability for the provider to continue providing > valuable services. > > In general, as you point out, these situations are like a steamroller > and end user demand will win out in the end. However, we can avoid a > period of chaos and instability if the providers take the lead and > manage an orderly transition to the new network order. > > --Michael Dillon > > -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | roger at jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]