Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

[Dave Bell <me () geordish org>]

Considering this requires updating every single IP stack that wants to
utilise this, what are the benefits of it other than just moving to IPv6?

Regards,
Dave

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 08:24, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG <
nanog () nanog org> wrote:

> Hello Matthew
>
>
>
> At the moment the draft has a general architecture, and it will take the
> right minds and experience to turn a model into a live network. Considering
> what the people in this list have already built, it’s no gigantic leap to
> figure they can build that too. Most of the building blocks that are
> implicit or TBD in the draft exist already.
>
>
>
> About linking ASN to realms, that’s Eduard’s view, I’ll let him answer.
> The draft is not like that, all existing ASN and IP addresses can be reused
> in every new realm, and there does not need to be any mapping. If people
> find a need or a reason to add constraints, that’s beyond me at this time,
> and against the natural philosophy of minimizing interdependences to
> maintain design freedom in each realm. The draft has one and one only
> dependency, that surface of the shaft is common to all realms.
>
>
>
> To your point, and unrelated to ASNs, the shaft can be physically
> distributed. Each physical place would announce 240.0.0.0/6, and the
> nearest alive would attract the traffic. See it as as many IXPs. In the
> current draft, there’s only one shaft that links all realms. And there’s a
> single realm number for each realm that is advertised in every physical
> instances of the shaft. All that is a  simplification to highlight the
> design.
>
>
>
> As the shaft lives on, a realm may be multihomed, the shaft might be
> subnetted to interconnect only specific realms, or to be advertised
> differently in different geographies. And then the subnets will need to be
> injected in the realms. The way around a breakage can be DNS, or BGP.
>
>
>
> All this is possible, you’ve already done it, and it’s really your play.
> We build the car, you drive it. Happy that you start figuring out how you
> prefer it to happen. While we figure out protocols to renumber more
> efficiently, fix source address selection, extend the NATs, you name it.
> There’s work for all and at every phase. But at this stage of the
> discussion, I favor the 10 miles view to get a shared basic understanding.
>
>
>
> On the side, I’d be happy to learn how you solved a situation like the one
> below, if there’s any article / doc?
>
>
>
> Keep safe;
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
> *Sent:* mardi 5 avril 2022 0:29
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard () huawei com>
> *Cc:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert () cisco com>; Nicholas Warren <
> nwarren () barryelectric com>; Abraham Y. Chen <aychen () avinta com>; Justin
> Streiner <streinerj () gmail com>; NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported
> re: 202203261833.AYC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:41 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <
> nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
> 240.0.01.1 address is appointed not to the router. It is appointed to
> Realm.
> It is up to the realm owner (ISP to Enterprise) what particular router (or
> routers) would do translation between realms.
>
>
>
> Please forgive me as I work this out in my head for a moment.
>
>
>
> If I'm a global network with a single ASN on every populated continent
>
> on the planet, this means I would have a single Realm address; for
>
> the sake of the example, let's suppose I'm ASN 42, so my Realm
>
> address is 240.0.0.42.  I have 200+ BGP speaking routers at
>
> exchange points all over the planet where I exchange traffic with
>
> other networks.
>
>
>
> In this new model, every border router I have would all use the
>
> same 240.0.0.42 address in the Shaft, and other Realms would
>
> simply hand traffic to the nearest border router of mine, essentially
>
> following a simple Anycast model where the nearest instance of the
>
> Realm address is the one that traffic is handed to, with no way to do
>
> traffic engineering from continent to continent?
>
>
>
> Or is there some mechanism whereby different instances of 240.0.0.42
>
> can announce different policies into the Shaft to direct traffic more
>
> appropriately that I'm not understanding from the discussion?
>
>
>
> Because if it's one big exercise in enforced Hot Potato Routing with
>
> a single global announcement of your reachability...
>
>
>
> ...that's gonna fail big-time the first time there's a major undersea
>
> quake in the Strait of Taiwan, which cuts 7/8ths of the trans-pacific
>
> connectivity off, and suddenly you've got the same Realm address
>
> being advertised in the US as in Asia, but with no underlying connectivity
>
> between them.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.submarinenetworks.com/news/cables-cut-after-taiwan-earthquake-2006
>
>
>
> We who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...badly.   :(
>
>
>
> Matt