[address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6

Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 05:16:47PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 05:36:11AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>>>> Interesting - it will work for a while, and then you will get to the 
>>>>> limit of deployed capability of routing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then what?
>>>> You buy new routers.
>>> So what you are saying is that _I_ want address portability and _you_ have 
>>> to buy new routers.
>> No, what he's saying is "_you_ want _my_ business, so _you_ have to
>> deliver what _I_ want. If you cannot deliver, there is no business for
>> _you_".

The 'you' here is a remote site where you have no (direct) business
relationship with. For that remote site, especially with those words,
there is no reason at all to any business with you. They are not going
to invest any cash to upgrade their network for you (the I in the sentence).

>> ISPs do exist for customers, not customers do exist  to feed ISPs in the
>> most convenient way for the ISPs. Some folks seem to forget that,
>> looking at all the discussion trying to ignore the demand for real
>> multihoming (and that includes TE and network-wide routing policy
>> implementation, neither being delivered by things like shim6).

But is it PI or a slot in the routing tables you want? The slot can be
bought by giving a lot of cash to ISP's so that they accept your prefix.

> BTW... in Germany, the phone operators were forced to implement phone
> number portability by law. The regulator didn't care about all the
> whining from the telcos about that being impossible, uneconomic, the
> world will explode etc. If they manage to get that imposed on the
> traditional telcos, I wonder how much easier it will be to do that on
> the ISPs.

Why do you even go near the analogy of a Telco?
I, nor any other endsite (who isn't a telco) can't do TE nor
network-wide routing policies nor any of the other things that people
like so much about in the current IPv4 with telephone systems.

Telephone is much more like DNS than IP. If you want telco-style "IP
portability" then simply (ahem) change (renumber) the IP's on your
servers/firewalls etc and update DNS. As that is how a number is
'ported'. Also telco style means that all incoming traffic gets routed
over your old ISP.

Andre Opperman had a large explanation on this subject on NANOG a couple
of weeks ago. See the thread around:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2005-10/msg00782.html

What you seem to want is "IPv6 PI", exactly the same thing as "IPv4 PI".
The worry here: routing table size. As not only you will want this, but
it might be that suddenly a million or so others also will want this in
the future, 20 years and more maybe even 50. We could make a policy to
give out "IPv6 PI" the IPv4 way but then we automatically end up with
IPv6 swamp when ISP's start restricting the prefixes they accept because
they don't want to buy yet another new routing setup. Also remember that
to participate in it, you have to see everything, thus all the small
fish (the ones needing "IPv6 PI") will require that big fancy new
router, got cash for that?

The only solution I see here is somewhat of the lines of:
+-------------+
| l3 src      |
| l3 dst      |
+-------------+
| shim src    |
| shim dst    |
+-------------+

Where the 'shim' addresses are "PI" prefixes given out from a special
block (eg a /16) where /40's and /48's come out of for the simple
purpose that one doesn't have to renumber, just add links and enable
your edge boxes to move the original l3 header to shim, and then adding
the l3 addresses from the ISP. When the other side receives it,
verify&strip the l3's (which are only used between transit/ISP's) and
tada done. It's something you can call double NAT or tunneling and this
is as far as I understood an extreme simplification of what shim6 is
going to do, first per host, but very easily also per site.

Indeed that doesn't allow those nice routing tricks to be defined, but
if you want to be able to do that, then don't ask for "provider
independent address space" but just say that you want a prefix that can
be stuck, and then work, in global bgp/dfz*.

Greets,
 Jeroen


* = before the obvious person asks, the routing table that is seen by
most ISP's on the "internet".

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 238 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20051130/dda0b837/attachment.sig>