North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing]
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
What I'm saying is that we should reconsider parts of IPv6' design decisions and fix stuff while we can. Opening the floodgates right now, which 2005-1 will do, will only cement the current IPv4 way of doing things with longest-prefix match. Doing longest-prefix match for high pps rates and high prefix counts in hardware is complex and expensive. Way more so than doing perfect match on 32 bits (giving 4bn routeable slots). To answer your question: I do support the rationale behind 2005-1 to allow for PI address space according to current IPv4 rules but I think it is premature right now to make the decision in this way. Once the first /48 according to it went out we have to support and carry it forever in the DFZ. Right now I'm against 2005-1. We should take a hard look at the current customer requirements and market drivers and look at either adjustments to current policies or even certain changes to IPv6 itself to align them. IMHO we have to find the best cross-section satisfying the following requirements: ) PI space to avoid renumbering when switching ISP's (independence) ) PI space to multi-home with two or more ISP's (performance/redundancy) ) PA space for ISP's to hand out to single-homed customers/consumers ) Efficient and cost-effective implementation of DFZ packet forwarding I'm a strong supporter of the original layered approach where different functionality resides on different levels of the stack and is not or only to least possible extent intermixed. Putting routing decisions into the transport layer (4) as it is done or proposed with SCTP and SHIM6 is Total Evilness(tm) in my book. Topology and such should be of no concern to transport. The network layer (3) must handle that in a transparent and independent fashion. This allows for future changes and improvements without having to change everything everywhere. And to make it clear I'm totally against geo-addressing finer than the size of RIR regions. Why should anyone take me seriously? Well, I'm running a genuine 4-digit AS number for as long as the RIR assigned it to me amost a decade ago. And I'm an operating system developer (FreeBSD) working on the network stack. This way I can claim to see all sides of the dice which helps a lot for the Big Picture(tm). -- Andre
Regards Marshall Eubanks On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:28 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:Owen DeLong wrote:Please don't mix up addressing and routing. "PI addressing" as you mention is addressing. SHIM6 will become a routing trick.I think that is overly pessimistic. I would say that SHIM6 _MAY_ become a routing trick, but, so far, SHIM6 is a still-born piece of overly complicated vaporware of minimal operational value, if any. Personally, I think a better solution is to stop overloading IDR meaning onto IP addresses and use ASNs for IDR and prefixes for intradomain routing only.