Re: v6 multihoming (Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6)

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

Nicolás Antoniello wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> To use AS path prepend when you advertise just one prefix does not solve 
> the problem...in this case it actually make it worth, 'cos you may find 
> all your trafic coming from only one of your uplinks.

Sure if you overdo it... Like I said It's a fairly gross knob. you're
attempting to manipulate the path selection algorithm of autonomous
systems you're not directly connected to.

Your upstream may offer knobs in the form of communities that you can
use to do prepending on their peers. which gives you a lot more exits to
control... I'll pick on savvis because their attributes came up first in
google.

http://savvis-rr.savvis.net/Routing_Registry/community_receive.htm

I think the subtext of what you were saying was that you needed to
de-agregate down /24 in order to do proper traffic engineering and that
is manifestly untrue despite what some network operators seem to believe.

joelja

> Nicolas.
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> joelja >Nicolás Antoniello wrote:
> joelja >> Hi Steve,
> joelja >> 
> joelja >> Sure... I've never mention 3 STM4... the example said 3 carriers.
> joelja >> 
> joelja >> OK, you may do it with communities, but if you advertise all in just one 
> joelja >> prefix, even with communities, I find it very difficult to control the 
> joelja >> trafic when it pass through 2 or more AS (it may be quite easy for the 
> joelja >> peer AS, but what about the other ASs)?
> joelja >
> joelja >AS path prepend?
> joelja >
> joelja >It's a gross nob. But it's not like there's no precedent for it's use.
> joelja >
> joelja >joelja
> joelja >
> joelja >> Nicolas.
> joelja >> 
> joelja >> 
> joelja >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> joelja >> 
> joelja >> steve. >Hi Nicolas,
> joelja >> steve. > you will never make 2GB of traffic go down one STM4 or even 3x STM4! 
> joelja >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >But you are asking me about load balancing amongst 3 upstreams...
> joelja >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >Deaggregation of your prefix is an ugly way to do TE. If you buy 
> joelja >> steve. >from carriers that support BGP communities there are much nicer 
> joelja >> steve. >ways to manage this. I've never deaggregated and I have had and do 
> joelja >> steve. >have individual prefixes that generate more traffic than any 
> joelja >> steve. >single GE link.
> joelja >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >Steve
> joelja >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 12:11:58PM -0300, Nicolás Antoniello wrote:
> joelja >> steve. >> Hi Stephen,
> joelja >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> Supose you have STM4 links, ok?
> joelja >> steve. >> And you have 2G of trafic from your 100000 ADSL customers, ok?
> joelja >> steve. >> And those STM4 go to 3 dif carriers in USA.
> joelja >> steve. >> Then, how you advertise only one IPv6 prefix to all and make the 2G go 
> joelja >> steve. >> trough one STM4 ?
> joelja >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
> joelja >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >Hi Christian,
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. > I am not seeing how v4 exhaustion, transition to v6, multihoming in v6 and destruction 
> ov DFZ are correlated.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >If you took everything on v4 today and migrated it to v6 tomoro the routing table would 
> not grow - actually by my calculation it should shrink (every ASN would only need one prefix to cover its current and 
> anticipated growth). So we'll see 220000 routes reduce to 25000.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >The technology we have now is not driving multihoming directly and v4 vs v6 is not a 
> factor there.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >So in what way is v6 destroying DFZ?
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >Steve
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:13:50PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Amazink!  Some things on NANOG _never_ change.  Trawling for trolls I must be.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> If you want to emulate IPv4 and destroy the DFZ, yes, this is trivial.  And you should 
> go ahead and plan that migration.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> As you well known, one of the core assumptions of IPv6 is that the DFZ policy stay 
> intact, ostensibly to solve a very specific scaling problem.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> So, go ahead and continue talking about migration while ignoring the very policies 
> within which that is permitted to take place and don't let me interrupt that ranting.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Best Regards,
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Christian 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> --
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Sent from my BlackBerry.      
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> -----Original Message-----
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> From: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox () packetrade com>
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:55:06 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> To:Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch () corp earthlink net>
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Cc:Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>, owner-nanog () merit edu,       Donald Stahl 
> <don () calis blacksun org>, nanog () nanog org
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Steve
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is pretty 
> pointless.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > --
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Sent from my BlackBerry.      
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > -----Original Message-----
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > From: Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > To:Donald Stahl <don () calis blacksun org>
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Cc:nanog () nanog org
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote:
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer  
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> 7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3.  If we'd (the  
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to  
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> Google's applications whether the content came from a site hosted  
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> on a v4 address, or a v6 address, or even both.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > > If Google does not have v6 connectivity then how are they going to  
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > > crawl those v6 sites?
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > I think we're debating from very similar positions...
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > v6 isn't the ideal scenario of '96 extra bits for free', because if  
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > life was so simple, we wouldn't need to ask this question.
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Andy
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > 
> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >
> joelja >> steve. >
> joelja >