[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

On 6-dec-2005, at 15:59, Sascha Lenz wrote:

>>> In particular, noone came up with an equal solution to BGP  
>>> Multihoming
>>> with "PI"-space, which i hoped for back then.

>> Well, you haven't been paying attention, because I've presented
>> "provider-internal aggregation based on geography" at two different
>> RIPE meetings a while ago.

> Actually, i did pay attention, but why do you think i consider that as
> an equal solution to BGP Multihoming with "PI"-space?

I don't understand what you're trying to say... But I'm happy that  
someone noticed what I was trying to say back then.

> It's _ONE_ alternative solution one might suggest, but still no reason
> for disallowing anyone in the globally distributed prefix table.

To me, it's pretty obvious that if we can have aggregatable PI space,  
then that's an excellent reason to NOT have non-aggregatable PI space.

Note however that the aggregation is optional in my plan: everyone  
can implement it in their own network independent of what everyone  
else does. In the beginning, there certainly won't be any reason to  
aggregate so this type of PI is completely equivalent to regular PI.

> Why do i want this at all?

Well, I don't know. I can get by with my PA /48 just fine. But  
apparently some people like to multihome and some of them insist that  
shim6 doesn't address their needs. And others want a portable prefix  
for other reasons.

> Because there are globally distributed
> prefixes right now, there is no geographically based assigment in  
> sight
> anywhere

So? If we really want this we can start doing this in a manner of  
weeks: the only requirement is that the RIRs start giving out  
prefixes that are aggregatable. In practice, it will take about the  
same amount of time as any other policy change.

> Do you expect everyone with a prefix today to give it back and  
> renumber?

Today, there is no PI in IPv6 so that's a moot question.

> BUT - if someone insists on BGP Multihoming with worldwide prefix
> distribution for whatever reason he/she might have, noone must be
> forbidden to do so!

I'd rather have a working internet without PI than a non-working one  
with it. Nobody can guarantuee that we won't run into trouble with PI  
so the only way we can be sure we won't have this trouble is to not  
have PI.

If you want PI as it exists today in IPv4, the burden is on you to  
show, yes, SHOW that it can scale for decades to come.

> The main problem is just people who want to tell "me" (not literally)
> what's best for "my" network, and disallow "me" in the pond with  
> the big
> fish.

Do whatever you want, as long as you don't do it in my routing table.

The internet only works as long as 99% of all people carry 99% of all  
routes. When a sizeable number of people starts filtering a sizeable  
number of routes for whatever reason, either technical (won't fit in  
their routers) or political (don't agree with the policies) then  
we're in knee-deep brown stuff.

-- 
I've written another book! http://www.runningipv6.net/