North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Michael.Dillon
  • Date: Tue Oct 18 05:06:23 2005

> > Here, the suggestion is that netblocks should
> > be allocated to cities, not to providers. Within
> I am a multihomed customer and my ISPs are in two different cities. What
> are my IP addresses going to be?

Your assumptions are flawed. I never suggested that there
would be a flag day. I never suggested that geotopological
addressing would work everywhere or solve all problems. I never
suggested that we should turn off the existing provider aggregatable
IP address allocations.

I just suggested an alternative way of issuing addresses so
that they are geotopologically aggregatable, not provider aggregatable.
There are sufficient reserved addresses in the IPv6 address space
to do this. We could start issuing geotopological netblocks and
try it for 5 years or so to see whether it works better or not.

In any case, you are located in Montreal which is such a major
city that I expect any ISP selling service (geotopologically) in 
Montreal would use Montreal address space even if they backhauled
at layer two to some other city.

However, there will likely be lots of situations where people
in small towns roughly equidistant from two cities will choose
to multihome with links to separate cities. This will either have
to be done using provider-aggregated addresses or by using
addresses from one of the cities with a longer prefix inside 
that city's routing table to direct the traffic to the 
neighboring city. If this is suboptimal, it won't be by much
considering that these are neighboring cities.

I'm not suggesting any change to IPv6 stacks or to routing
protocols. I'm just suggesting that we could allocate the same
IPv6 addresses to operators in a way that allows geotopological
aggregation rather than the existing provider aggregation. 
Combine this with local traffic exchange in every city and
you have a more robust Internet with lower overall latency
that will run with a smaller global routing table.

I know that some individual operators, such as the one 
I work for, have very robust IP networks with low overall
latency. But when we talk about the Internet, then we include
all the private interconnects and public exchange points
and tromboning of traffic due to peering "issues", etc.

--Michael Dillon

--Michael Dillon