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

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:30:25 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>On 6-dec-2005, at 15:59, Sascha Lenz wrote:
[...]
>>> 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.
>> It's _ONE_ alternative solution one might suggest, but still no reason
>> for disallowing anyone in the globally distributed prefix table.

Ack.

>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.

You may aggregatable PI space if you can convince the router
manufacturers create and implement a new RFC which adds an
additional layer for prefix aggregation within the BGP protocol.

Geographical aggregation however, is _for_sure_ not the
solution for the new centrury. Geographical solutions happened
in the last century.

Nowadays carriers use DWDM technology, and yes, a link
between Frankfurt and London or even New York is cheaper and
easier to obtain than a link between Frankfurt and Wiesbaden.

The key issue is whether competing dark fiber or leased line
carriers are available at a certain location and _not_ the distance
between those.

>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.

Yes, and as these people make a significant part out of the
IPv4 internet world, as ISP's we can either support their requirement
or keep IPv6 experimental. Period.

>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.

The key issues is: What today might look like an aggregate,
won't be one tomorrow.

Today A might be related to B and C to D, thus
(AB) or (CD) might sound like good aggregates, tommorow
A is related to C and B to D.

Math limits the aggregation possibilities for ABCD.

In this case, a bit mask could help:
(A=x00y, B=x01y, C=x10y, D=x11y, thus
 first case mask 10, second 01)
but it is obviously not possible to find an aggregation solution
for any possible combination (e.g. ABC vs. D).

As routing was not really considered by the designers of the
IPv6 protocol (yes, this _is_ an fault, IPv6 can be considered
a lousy solution under this view), we can either live with it
or give it up. Living with it means providing a solution for
the PI requesting organisations and waiting for an aggregation
enhancement of the routing protocols or keep it experimental,
which probably means: Let it die.

Even if the PI question is solved these days, I won't be sure
if the answer isn't already too late. The market will tell us.

>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.

This argument is unreal, you can stop _any_ project with it,
in Germany we call it "Vollkaskomentatlitaet" and our country
suffers a lot from it.

There is simply no way to prove that a given solution won't
have a side effect.

If you write: "Nobody can guarantee ..." then I will tell you:

Nobody can _guarantee_ that your posting by its formating or
content can't cause a significant harm to an important server,
cause a worldwide crash of the internet, thus impairs water and
electricity supply and at the end let the aliens conquer earth.

Thus you shouldn't post to this list ...

Of course this is very very unlikely to happen, but, who knows,
a word sequence within your comment might trigger this by
a unknown bug within a common microprocessor type.
You can't gurantee that your posts don't harm, thus by your
own logic you should really consider not to post anymore ...

More realistic:

I'd rather like a internet with IPv6 and PI and the very low probability
of of trouble which can with a high probably be fixed than no real-in-use
IPv6 because of arguments which request gurantees that can't be
given for _any_ solution on this planet.

Up to now engineers have always proven to find solutions
for networking problems like the PI issue, thus there will
be some solution for sure if required. However I doubt there
will be ever this requirement.

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

You are free to implement _your_ routing table as you like and
to filter what you like, however:

The global routing table is not _your_ routing table.

Please don't block further enhancements of the Internet and
please don't damage IPv6 by spreading out FUD.

Thank You!

Best regards
Oliver Bartels

P.s. @RIPE NCC: Question: Is there a practical way to replace the
slow and cumbersome "consensus" principle of the RIPE by a democratic
majority vote of the RIPE NCC members to stop further damage to IPv6,
perhaps with a decision at the next RIPE NCC general meeting ?

Of course some RIPE participants might then discuss adresss policies
for ever, but for the RIPE NCC members we would then probably have
practically acceptale policies for implementation in real world networks.



Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany
oliver at bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0