nanog mailing list archives
2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing]
From: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list () nrg4u com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:42:49 +0100
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Does this mean that you support 2005-1, or do you think a new ARIN proposal is needed ?
What I'm saying is that we should reconsider parts of IPv6' design decisions and fix stuff while we can. Opening the floodgates right now, which 2005-1 will do, will only cement the current IPv4 way of doing things with longest-prefix match. Doing longest-prefix match for high pps rates and high prefix counts in hardware is complex and expensive. Way more so than doing perfect match on 32 bits (giving 4bn routeable slots). To answer your question: I do support the rationale behind 2005-1 to allow for PI address space according to current IPv4 rules but I think it is premature right now to make the decision in this way. Once the first /48 according to it went out we have to support and carry it forever in the DFZ. Right now I'm against 2005-1. We should take a hard look at the current customer requirements and market drivers and look at either adjustments to current policies or even certain changes to IPv6 itself to align them. IMHO we have to find the best cross-section satisfying the following requirements: ) PI space to avoid renumbering when switching ISP's (independence) ) PI space to multi-home with two or more ISP's (performance/redundancy) ) PA space for ISP's to hand out to single-homed customers/consumers ) Efficient and cost-effective implementation of DFZ packet forwarding I'm a strong supporter of the original layered approach where different functionality resides on different levels of the stack and is not or only to least possible extent intermixed. Putting routing decisions into the transport layer (4) as it is done or proposed with SCTP and SHIM6 is Total Evilness(tm) in my book. Topology and such should be of no concern to transport. The network layer (3) must handle that in a transparent and independent fashion. This allows for future changes and improvements without having to change everything everywhere. And to make it clear I'm totally against geo-addressing finer than the size of RIR regions. Why should anyone take me seriously? Well, I'm running a genuine 4-digit AS number for as long as the RIR assigned it to me amost a decade ago. And I'm an operating system developer (FreeBSD) working on the network stack. This way I can claim to see all sides of the dice which helps a lot for the Big Picture(tm). -- Andre
Regards Marshall Eubanks On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:28 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:Owen DeLong wrote:Please don't mix up addressing and routing. "PI addressing" as you mention is addressing. SHIM6 will become a routing trick.I think that is overly pessimistic. I would say that SHIM6 _MAY_ become a routing trick, but, so far, SHIM6 is a still-born piece of overly complicated vaporware of minimal operational value, if any. Personally, I think a better solution is to stop overloading IDR meaning onto IP addresses and use ASNs for IDR and prefixes for intradomain routing only.Full ACK! For the IDR we then can use perfect match lookups which scale very well and pretty cheaply to many millions of table entries. BGP scales very well too if you've got a decent cpu in your router.Our OpenBGPD easily does 30 flapping constandly full-feeds with 1 millionroutes each. Lets get pragmatic and realistic! -- Andre
Current thread:
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne), (continued)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Per Heldal (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) bmanning (Mar 01)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Brandon Butterworth (Mar 01)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) David Barak (Mar 01)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Joe Abley (Mar 01)
- Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jeroen Massar (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Andre Oppermann (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)
- 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Andre Oppermann (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 03)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Joe Abley (Mar 01)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Edward B. DREGER (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Per Heldal (Mar 06)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 06)