Re: Changes to PI Policy?
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:52:59 +0200
We could also agree to start accepting smaller networks within a given range RIPE would make PI assignments within.
eg: accept up to /29 within 193/8.
Andr�
At 13:17 20.04.2003 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 05:04:07PM +0100, Peter Gradwell wrote:
>[..]
>> rest), or some type of route caching (so you don't have to
>> know about the whole route).
>
>Route caching and backbone providers (read: traffic to very diverse
>destinations) do not get along well.
>
>Route caching and network scans (read: Code Red and friends) are a deseaster
>waiting to happen.
>
>This is one of the reasons Cisco went away from netflow caching and to
>CEF - no caches, deterministic lookup time for each destination.
>
>[..]
>> 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
>
>There are approaches to this, but I personally really dislike them.
>
>It works like the telephone network.
>
>You have to register your routes at some central entity.
>
>Once per day, you download all available routes to some kind of
>"preprocessing server". This server will take your topology and peerings
>into account, and condense the table into the minimum necessary to
>route everything into the proper direction (remember that most routers
>only have a couple of interfaces, and "most stuff" goes out of one
>of them). Then this routing table is downloaded into the router.
>
>It will scale to about unlimited routes, but the cost will be flexibility
>and fast failover in case of outages. To cope with this, networks need
>to get much more reliability at L1 and L2 layers. Just like telephone
>networks...
>
>[..]
>> 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).
>
>Usually because they have only 5 machines, but wanted a /24 "because it's
>much nicer, and we're so important".
>
>Gert Doering
> -- NetMaster
>--
>Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 58512 (58485)
>
>SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
>80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
---------------------
Andre Chapuis
IP+ Engineering
Swisscom Ltd
Genfergasse 14
3050 Bern
+41 31 893 89 61
chapuis@localhost
CCIE #6023
----------------------
