|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
On 13-sep-2005, at 21:58, Daniel Senie wrote: So where were you the past years in multi6 and months in shim6? Please be part of the solution and not part of the problem. (That goes for John Payne and Daniel Senie too.) I was there in the beginning for Multi6. When I saw the direction (s) that were being considered, I decided the whole concept was a non-starter and spent my budget of IETF hours on other areas that had a chance of being useful.Which is of course your good right. However, in your message earlier today you were spreading FUD about the IPv6 address length, a ship that sailed a decade ago. In my book, that's being part of the problem. Especially since a subset of the NANOG membership may not be familiar enough with the issues to be able to see through all of this. There is one that I always make time for, about four others depending on time constraints.Just how many IETF groups do you participate in? In how many different IETF areas? Never counted. Do you also get other work done? Look up my name on Amazon... Most folks (perhaps including you) have limited amounts of time to spend on IETF work. Some folks get paid to do such work by their employers, while others don't. Well, I don't have an "employer" so that doesn't apply in my case. :-) At what point does it make sense as a participant in a working group to look at the direction and sense of the room and decide that no amount of arguing is going to keep a trainwreck from occurring?At some point after the requirements discussion, I'd say. I'm not saying everyone and their dog should co-design the protocol, but I think it's reasonable to ask people to take 15 minutes to write down their requirements in a message to the list at that point, rather than whine later. Something similar is happening with the RIR policies. People "just want PI" but they don't want to come up with a policy that makes it possible to give people who really need PI or a PA block one, while at the same time making sure the routing tables aren't going to explode in the future. I don't know why I bother, but let me tell all of you that the size of the v4 table TODAY is a problem. A customer of mine wanted to load balance over two BGP sessions to the same AS, but his linecards crashed because this required two copies of every route in the FIB, which didn't fit in the linecard's memory. These were fairly reasonable Cisco 12000 linecards with 512 MB RAM. Now in v4 the minimum prefix you'll see is a /24. Since a lot of address space is already used in larger blocks, and you need to show decent utilization, there are natural limits to the numbers of /24s in the routing table. However, in v6 these limits don't apply, so ANYONE can get a /48 (I have 3 currently). If you accept those in your routing table that table is going to explode at some point. So just ignoring the issue is not an option. Still, many people just want their own portable block, and don't even want to bother THINKING about the issue.
|