[ipv6-wg] The DFZ and supernetting

On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 12:02 +0200, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> On man, september 19, 2011 11:38, Jasper Jans wrote:
> <snip>
> > I have been wondering - since BGP is all about reachability as a goal and
> > not
> > so much optimal routing/best path/etc. is the easy solution for growth in
> > the
> > DFZ not overly simple? The way I see it you will end up with three sets of
> > routes
> > that you will need to carry on your routers:
> >
> > 1) Own customer routes - these can be any prefix length between /48 and
> > /64
> > 2) Other LIRs aggregates in same RIR region - these are /32 and bigger
> > 3) Supernets for other RIR regions - these are /12 or larger
> 
> ... geo adressing? :-)
> 
> 
> anyway, about #3, how should be it implemented in practice? 

Good question.

> Who should carry others route in DFZ between regions, and who should
> distribute it to others? 

Anyone who so pleases.

> Should RIPE/ARIN/APNIC etc "pay" someone to make region<>region
> communication possible?

Oh dear TCAMs, please no.


> and yeah, the idea is sound and I agree but can't really see an easy way
> to implement it today...

It sounds suspiciously like ITU for me (ie, bad).  It imposes previously
non-existent architectural limits and constraints on Internet routing
(given there is some form of routing police, of course :-)):  How would
you multi-home across region boundaries?  

What will happen with other inter-region connectivity? All AS:es who
peer over a region-boundary, they will have to stop? (Who can enforce
that?)
Or will they have to get space from each regions RIR and do prefix
translation in their routers? (This will amplify space usage by number
of regions, roughly, for operators with presence in more than one
region.)


Jasper, how did you conclude that RIR region boundaries is a good place
to draw the line in the sand by the way?
  Why, for example, didn't you suggest nation state borders?  (Ie,
Denmark could have 0045::, Sweden 0046:: and so on)

Cheers,
Martin