North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Sun Mar 05 17:14:34 2006

On 5-mrt-2006, at 17:37, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

The solution is routing based on geography: give every city of ~ 250k
people a /32, and give people who multihome in or near that city a /
48 out of that /32.

can the v6 table/space work with 6B /48's?
It can if you distribute those 6G prefixes over 6k - 64k routers, so each only has to carry 100k - 1M of those prefixes.

Our approximate design goal was 1 multihomers per 10 people in the year 2050. That would be around one billion mulithomers. Today we don't see much more than 1 in 25000 in parts of the world where multihoming is popular, and in most places it isn't.

Additionally, how many /32's are
there? Does scaling that to each municipality make sense? the arbitrary (I
suspect) 250k person limit will quickly devolve into 'any municipality'
with much less restriction on it.
The idea was having 64k /32s holding 64k /48s each. That means you'll end up with a /32 for each area with around 250k people. Having aggregation below that level doesn't look worthwhile and the number of municipal /32s would become uncomfortably large.

Of course people living in small towns aren't left in the cold, it's just that they have to share a /32 with other small towns, the surrounding rural area or fall under a big city close by.

48s that are filtered here are still known. Since every AS still has
all the /48s somewhere within the AS, this works without strange
requirements such as free transit or interconnection in every city.

I think I'm missing how this would work... if I don't have a route to you
you don't exist.
That's the beauty of aggregation. As an example, your AS could have US routes split into two sets: east of the Mississippi and west of the Mississippi. If you then want to send a packet from Boston to a multihomer in San Diego, the routers in Boston don't carry the /48 for that San Diego multihomer. But there is an aggregate for San Diego, so the packet is sent on its way with help from the aggregate. When the packet hits the first router west of the Mississippi, it is forwarded as per the actual /48.

inside a single ASN aggregation may be workable. On the entire network
it's going to be much more complex :(
As long as each AS carries its customer routers everywhere and announces them to other ASes everywhere, there is no need to coordinate, because the outward behavior of each AS is as before. The only difference is that internally, things happen slightly differently.

Obviously strange ways of multihoming (towards ISPs on different
continents, for instance) or strange ways of interconnecting (such as

ah, like pipex or vnsl or ... name your extra-us provider of choice. From
the 'non-NAnog' perspective, what about US carriers in ASPAC that
multihome to several pacific island nations at once?
Not sure what you mean, but suppose there is an island in the pacific where several US carriers land, but they don't interconnect there. Also suppose that carrier 1 links this island to LA and carrier 2 to Palo Alto. A packet from a customer of carrier 1 to a customer of carrier 2 will flow to LA because the /32 for the island points to LA (not to the island itself because there is no interconnection there). Carrier 2 doesn't have the full set of more specifics for the island in LA (they have those in Palo Alto) but they DO have all their customer routes in LA, so carrier 1 hears the /48 for carrier 2's customer in LA and hands the packet off to carrier 2, which transports it to Palo Alto and on to the island. Return packets will flow from carrier 2 to carrier 1 in Palo Alto.

two European networks interconnecting in Chicago) aren't very
compatible with geographic aggregation, but who cares about 10%
exceptions as long as you can aggregate the other 90%. Enterprises

is it 10%? did you measure this?
No. The only thing that we can possibly measure is what's in place today, and that's not representative for a situation where we have more than a million multihomers. However, it is to be expected that when we reach the point where there are that many multihomers, there will be some reason to the way multihomers connect to their ISPs. I would expect that the vast majority connects to local or regional ISPs. Even if they don't, it's not going to be that 5% of Paris multihomers connects to Montana, another 5% to Cape Town, 5% to Aruba and so on. If they do at the point that geographical aggregation takes off, they'll find that their traffic takes detours, i.e. a packet from Montana to Paris will first flow to Paris as per the aggregate, then go to the multihomer's ISP, then to Montana where the multihomer connects and finally back to Paris. So they'll have an incentive to multihome to ISPs closer to home but doing that wouldn't be too painful because they don't have to renumber if they used a Paris prefix from the start.