nanog mailing list archives
Re: moving to IPv6
From: "John A. Tamplin" <jat () traveller com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:51:30 -0600 (CST)
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
Of course, then what happens is that you have to revoke the multiple ASNs that some providers have - which IMHO should NOT have been issued. "Administrative convenience" isn't a valid reason to be issuing ASNs all over the place. There is no *need* to do so - there may be a *want* to do so, primarily because people don't want to carry their own customer's traffic for the majority of the trip in even one direction (which IMHO is baloney, but heh, that's just my point of view).
The legitimate reason for multiple ASs is when separate parts of the network have very different routing. For example, let's say a big company on a single continent has one prefix for their whole network. They then expand to another continent. If they use address space under that same prefix, they wind up either having the transcontinental link large enough to support all of the transcontinental traffic for that prefix, or they wind up routing traffic across a transcontinental link and back when it didn't have to. Now, if they get a different prefix for the new continent, traffic will take the optimal path. This is no different than inefficiencies caused by the current implementation. Generally, traffic gets to the destination AS as quickly as possible and then finds its way to the destination host from there. However, there may be a shorter path involving a different entry point into the destination AS. With the larger address space of IPv6, there is the capacity for an arbitrary number of levels in the hierarchy. Obviously, making use of those levels to improve on the inefficiency noted above will require more routes to be propagated, so there is a tradeoff. I don't think we want either a routing table contaning one route per AS nor do we want one containing every subnet with each AS. Ideally, we would choose some level of detail between those extremes, using multiple routes per AS only where they actually improve routing. John Tamplin Traveller Information Services jat () Traveller COM 2104 West Ferry Way 205/883-4233x7007 Huntsville, AL 35801
Current thread:
- IPsec processing & NAT (was Re: moving to IPv6), (continued)
- Message not available
- IPsec processing & NAT (was Re: moving to IPv6) Ran Atkinson (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Gary E. Miller (Nov 05)
- Message not available
- Overloaded semantics (was Re: moving to IPv6) Ran Atkinson (Nov 03)
- Re: Overloaded semantics (was Re: moving to IPv6) Thomas Narten (Nov 05)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Dirk Harms-Merbitz (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Pedro Marques (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Karl Denninger (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phillip Vandry (Nov 05)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Karl Denninger (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 John A. Tamplin (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Karl Denninger (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Gary E. Miller (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vadim Antonov (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Winfried Haug (Nov 09)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 11)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 11)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Greg A. Woods (Nov 01)