Re: Changes to PI Policy?
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:04:07 +0100
At 15:53 17/04/2003 +0100, Denesh Bhabuta wrote:
erm, want to come up with some ideas rather than making
blanket 'management type' statements such as 'fix this and I don't care how'?
Sure... I was just out for most of the day yesterday. I
made the blanket statement because it's the user's point of
view (and it's my point of view as a user). I want to help
the group stay away from making policy in a vacuum.
The PI Task force was set up for exchange of ideas to
'fix' the issue. It would be useful for you to look at
the history of this, and look at past documents and the
LIR-WG mailing list. Look at the real world constraints -
and then tell us what you think is the best way forward.
I accept that the amount of memory you can fit in a router
is finite and that the number of routers an ISP can afford
is also finite. I also accept that if we make a BGP mesh
more complicated then the problem of determine the best
route will become computationally impossible to compute.
However, the number of items we want to connect to this
network and thus the number of addresses we are going to
need is (a) not going to reduce and (b) is not finite.
Having thought about this issue before in some detail (I
wrote an application to do a PhD on the subject, but
discovered i didn't like the supervisor) I think that
actually the issue of enormous routing tables is a very
hard issue and it is not sufficently well addressed by the
current hardware, software and logic we are employing. I
think that finding a good solution should be the subject of
some long and well thought out research, perhaps using
markets (trade for the best route and forget about the
rest), or some type of route caching (so you don't have to
know about the whole route).
anyway... what I'm saying is that I don't think we can
solve the issue here & now in this WG and I don't think the
solution is for RIPE to outlaw PI space because it's
inconvenient. I think the solution is to make everything
Provider Independent and solve the large scale routeing table problem
However... like I just said, I don't think we can do that today.
So, my first (serious) suggestion is that RIPE (perhaps
with ARIN, IETF, APNIC, etc.) sponsor some Chairs in a few
Maths & Computer Science departments round the world to
reduce the deficiency in the number of academics looking at
routing problems. (For example, there is one bloke in the
UK, Dr Ian Pratt, who had one research student, richard
morttimer, who has now gone onto other things, who know
vaguely anything about BGP and/or who are doing anything
with it. OTOH, there are loads of brilliant mathematicians
and computer scientists all over the place that would quite
happily produce some good solutions to the bigger problem.
So, having got the whole blue sky / dreamboat / next-gen
stuff out of the way, my second (serious) suggestion is
that RIPE applies a "quick fix". I suggest that:
Obviously, if nothing smaller than a /24 will not be routed
then there is little point in allocating it. (If some one
applies for a /24 PI space because they got turned down on
a PA request, we have to wonder why the PA request was denied).
- Do we know what the actual impact on the routing table
would be if we permitted smaller allocations from the PI address blocks?
any way. I shall have to continue this long train of thought after the weekend.
peter gradwell. gradwell dot com Ltd. http://www.gradwell.com/
engineering & hosting services for email, web and usenet