[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")

Kurt Erik Lindqvist;

>>>It's possible for a small ISP to get several blocks from their
>>>upstream, route them inside their network and assign each of their
>>>customers with an address out of each of those blocks. Does it scale?
>>>Nope. Can it handle failures in the upstream? No. Etc.
>>
>>First of all, the small ISPs have multiple upstream ISPs.
> 
> 
> Yes?

It does scale.

It can handle failures in the upstream.

>>It is explicitly stated in my draft, which is 3 pages long:
>>
>>   It is expected that NLIs have multiple prefixes each belonging to
>>   multiple TLAs, all of which is delegated to sites.
>>
>>NLI is an acronym of "Next Level ISP".

> Yes? And if the end host selects an address that belongs to a TLI that 
> has a internal network failure and the traffic is blaockholed in that 
> providers network, how does the end node find out? TCP timeout?

Read the draft of end to end multihoming.

It is an issue of transport/application layer.

Application running over TCP can use default TCP timeout or
modify it.

Application may use UDP with its own timeout.

>>>There are several of the proposals in multi6 that have never received
>>>comments, nor support of any kind.
>>
>>That's fine, as long as you are indifferent to the issue.

> I am not.

You have been.

> But it's the multi6 WG that will have to end up selecting 
> what to move forward.

It's your problem that you failed to properly control the WG.

> "Guilty"!? Whatever.

See the subject.

> So each TLI can have their own policy for their down-stream NLIs? Who 
> decides who are the TLIs?

If you need an example policy, read the draft.

>>>It does not address what would happen if an ISP
>>>grow, get's split/divided.
>>
>>No, of course.
>>
>>What if, an ISP having a global routing table entry grow, get's
>>split/divided?
> 
> 
> Actually, this is an issue today. Not a complex one, but there is 
> policies in place for it. And if a TLI no longer is a TLI, that will 
> have implications on down-streams.

Sure. So, even if you directly subscribe to an TLI, you may
have to renumber. Fair enough.

> Your draft does makes assumptions on how the policy would like.

My draft does not make any assumption on how the policy
would like.

You failed to give specific example for counter argument.

>>>It does not address the non-balance of
>>>local vs global traffic coverage.

> What about TLIs that do have large customer bases in local networks? 
> What about very dominant local players that today can force large ISPs 
> to peer simply because of the dominance in particular markets?

Dominant local players may be treated as NLI or it can be an
independent TLI.

I know Yahoo, for example, has certain influence on its ISPs.

>>It is a policy issue orthogonal to my draft.

> Again, if you propose something that ignores the polices as they are 
> implemented in todays Internet, I would expect at least some 
> elaboration on how you see todays ISPs adopt this scheme.

I do recognize the policies and says them orthogonal.

>>What if an ISP bankrupts (like UUNET) and stop operating?
> 
> 
> It creates a nightmare for it's customers. Been there, done that, and 
> have plenty of T-shirts to prove it. I think you miss the point. 
> customers do not want to renumber if their _ISP change upstream_. That 
> have a financial impact on them without them having control of the 
> decision.

You miss the point. I'm saying all the ISPs have chance to change
its prefix.

							Masataka Ohta