Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)

(I trimmed the CC list...)

On måndag, dec 2, 2002, at 13:15 Europe/Stockholm, Iljitsch van Beijnum 
wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>
>>> The main issue is, devise an exit plan before you let stuff pollute 
>>> the
>>> routing tables: part of the consensus should be an agreement on how 
>>> the
>>> advertisements will be limited in the future, so that only very few
>>> sites get advertised that way. For example, maybe we should only 
>>> agree
>>> that a given ISP can only allocate a limited number of "routable 
>>> /48".
>>> Maybe a condition for accepting such a BGP advertisement will be that
>>> the /48 should be of the form xxxx:xxxx:000y, where xxxx:xxxx is the
>>> /32
>>> allocated to the provider -- this would limit inflation to 16 entries
>>> per provider...
>
>> I think that is to few, but the concept is actually pretty nice. Then
>> again, I am not sure it will have much effect.
>
> X per ISP is not going to work as there are global ISPs and very, very
> local ones.

Well, what I meant was that the day an ISP run out of their PI blocks 
they will just continue down the address block, just as ISPs today are 
announcing more specifics than their RIR allocation and complaining 
that these are not accepted. I don't see why we think people would 
behave differently just because this is IPv6....

>

>> Backing out is simple and will happen on it's own, as is the case 
>> today.
>
> It would be much, much better if we could agree that everyone does this
> the same way. Having a route in 90% of the routers isn't much better
> than having it in 100% of the routers, but being able to reach 90% of
> the internet is much worse than being able to reach 100%.

That is the way it works for many (perhaps most) of the multihomers 
today. 90% is better than the 0% we have today. Still, I agree that if 
we can come up with a common solution that would be better. My proposal 
is to accept /48 for the time being and not scale back until there is a 
new solution.

>
> If geo aggregation isn't feasible, then I think a fixed block of PI 
> /48s
> for each RIR would be the next best option. I think that everyone can
> agree that 4 or 5 x 1024 - 8192 (for a total of 4096 - 40960) routes
> wouldn't be too bad if we can keep a tight lid on this. And if and when
> other blocks are commisioned, people can choose to carry or filter
> those, without hurting existing multihomers.
>

What is it that we think we gain with these specific blocks, be it for 
site-locals or multihoming? The number of routes are not going to be 
less. If the RIRs use up their current assignments -good! Then at least 
we have a IPv6 network from where we can start drawing conclusions. The 
current routing table is mostly 6bone space that is temporary and 
should go away. That leaves us with the ~250 sub-TLAs currently 
assigned. I am not worried yet.

- kurtis -