[lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261
Carlos Morgado chbm at cprm.net
Wed May 28 15:24:02 CEST 2003
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 01:07:08PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 10:45:44AM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 09:07:05PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > > > > > The *benefit* of "/48 multihoming" is that you can filter those routes > > > if you don't want to see them - then your routers will send packets > > > down the /32 road, and eventually hit a router that knows about the /48 > > > > This is exactly why providers will have an hard time selling this to > > customers. 'It may work, it might not, depends, you have no control and > > neither do we'. > > One of us us confused about this, and it's not me. > > A /48 from an aggregate is MUCH MORE reliable than a /48 that has no > fallback aggregate. If the latter is filtered (or flap-dampened, or > "lost" due to bad as-path filters, or however), you're dead. If the > former is lost, you can always send packets in the direction of the > aggregate, and at a certain proximity, the /48 will be visible again > and be used for proper packet delivery. > Ok, I wasn't clear - I was strictly speaking about broken up PA space, not PA /48 vs. PI /48. You're right, if people per rule filter at /32 PI /48 is worse. If people per rule filter at /48 (which seems to be a requirement for this scheme to work) then /48 PI is better as it permits traffic engineering by the multihomed network. I mean, if you multihome and know for a fact at least half of the internet won't see one of your links (either because of filters or sumarization) what's the point ? If you do know /48s will indeed be visible by most of the internet using PI results in the same number of entries as PA, allows better control by the multihomed network and given a carefull allocation policy (now that IPv6 space is plenty and sparse) allows to grow the /48(s) into bigger allocations with minimal disruption. > Besides this, I hope you're not selling *any* service related to Internet > connectivity to your customers with the claim that you have any control > about things more than two AS hops away from your network...? Because > you haven't. > No, I'm selling in technical good faith. I currently take steps to maximize the quality of the transit I sell considering the current IPv4 framework and current practices. In my opinion however with the /48 PA method I can't in good faith sell the same level of service. cheers -- Carlos Morgado <chbm at cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer.
[ lir-wg Archives ]