[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 08:47:12PM +0000, Jon Lawrence wrote:
> Yes, I agree that they are PI in disguise. But they are still a way of saying 
> to general end users that there's no such thing as PI space - by general end 
> users, I mean corporations not people like TLD (or ccTLD) operators (they 
> should know full well what's what). Or are we just going to say, if you can 
> create a good enough case then PI exists - come and get it.

PI will come or IPv6 not fly. Face it.

> If we (as in RIPE) are going to start handing out longer than /32's
> then all the RIR's have to make it abundantly clear that they don't
> support the idea of /32 filters

ARIN and LACNIC already do. RIPE (not NCC) folks are still trying to
make policy around people's failure to properly maintain filters. It's
like capitulating before the battle even started (looking at actual
deployment out there, the few who don't get it [filtering] will learn
it the hard way later).

> or should they (RIR's) make allocations/assignments (call them what
> you will) from a global pool for these micro allocations and everyone
> then shouts about how this specific /32 shouldn't be filtered.

Yes.

ARIN:   http://www.arin.net/registration/ipv6/micro_alloc.html
        (2001:0500::/29)
LACNIC: http://lacnic.net/en/registro/index.html
        "IPv6: 2001:1200::/23 (minimum allocation /48)"
        "NAPs/IXP in the region: [...] 2001:12f8::/32"

So basically you have to (judging from above statement) expect valid /48
announcements from whole LACNIC space.

And from ARIN space within 2001:500::/29.

> How soon do we think the routing tables are going to become
> unmanageable (and I mean unmanageable by the routers themselves) ??
> 3 years, 5 years ??

Can you give some well-funded projection, or just hand-waving FUD?

> Perhaps we ought to be asking the people who design/build the routers
> what they think their kit will be capable of by then.

They say that they test their RPs for 1 million RIB routes since years.
Not the (then) high-end gear you have bought ten years ago, or even only
a few years ago where you may have made questionable and/or short-sighted
purchase decisions.

> We have seen large increases (in % terms) of what routers can now do
> compared to 5 years ago, what's to say we're not going to see even
> bigger % increases over the next 5 years.

We don't need. We don't even push (good) 5-year old gear to the limits
with today's IPv4 junk DFZ RIB. Give every IPv6 ASN a prefix to announce
and we'll add about 10-15% to this RIB. Big deal? I strongly disagree.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0