nanog mailing list archives
Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:31:35 -0800
--On March 2, 2006 9:37:12 AM -0500 Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:01:22PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:I think you're missing that some people do odd things with their IPs as well, like have one ASN and 35 different sites where they connect to their upstream Tier69.net all with the same ASN. This means that their 35 offices/sites will each need a /32, not one per the entire asn in the table.People who are doing that have not read the definition of the term ASN and there is no reason that the community or public policy should concern itself with supporting such violations of the RFCs. An AS is a collection of prefixes with a consistent and common routing policy. By definition, an AS must be a contiguous collection of prefixes or it is not properly a single AS. Using the same ASN to represent multiple AS is a clear violation. It doesn't fit the RFC definition of AS. Therefore, there is no reason to support such usage on a continuing basis. You violate the RFC's you takes your chances.I guess all those root servers that use the same asn but connect to different networks (anycast) should get shut down quickly.
No... In the case of anycast, there is a consistent routing policy for the address. There are services that don't work because of that routing policy, but, that's a decision of the service provider in question. However, they are using the equivalent of one /32 per entire ASN, not one per site. If they are advertising different prefixes from different sites in an inconsistent manner using the same ASN, that is broken. That's not what anycast does.
This is a part of networking life today in the v4 space, and without any current changes, it will (is) the same in v6 routing as there is nothing different except a few more bits 32 => 128.
Anycast is part of networking life today. What you described initially is _NOT_ how anycast works. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing, (continued)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jeroen Massar (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Mark Newton (Mar 02)
- Notes on design of IPv6 BGP multihoming with special subroute attributes (was - Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing) william(at)elan.net (Mar 02)
- Re: Notes on design of IPv6 BGP multihoming with special subroute attributes (was - Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 02)
- Re: Notes on design of IPv6 BGP multihoming with special subroute attributes (was - Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing) william(at)elan.net (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jared Mauch (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jared Mauch (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Todd Vierling (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Roland Dobbins (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Andy Davidson (Mar 06)