|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: v6 multihoming (Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6)
Nicolás Antoniello wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Sure... I've never mention 3 STM4... the example said 3 carriers. > > OK, you may do it with communities, but if you advertise all in just one > prefix, even with communities, I find it very difficult to control the > trafic when it pass through 2 or more AS (it may be quite easy for the > peer AS, but what about the other ASs)? AS path prepend? It's a gross nob. But it's not like there's no precedent for it's use. joelja > Nicolas. > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > > steve. >Hi Nicolas, > steve. > you will never make 2GB of traffic go down one STM4 or even 3x STM4! > steve. > > steve. >But you are asking me about load balancing amongst 3 upstreams... > steve. > > steve. >Deaggregation of your prefix is an ugly way to do TE. If you buy > steve. >from carriers that support BGP communities there are much nicer > steve. >ways to manage this. I've never deaggregated and I have had and do > steve. >have individual prefixes that generate more traffic than any > steve. >single GE link. > steve. > > steve. >Steve > steve. > > steve. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 12:11:58PM -0300, Nicolás Antoniello wrote: > steve. >> Hi Stephen, > steve. >> > steve. >> Supose you have STM4 links, ok? > steve. >> And you have 2G of trafic from your 100000 ADSL customers, ok? > steve. >> And those STM4 go to 3 dif carriers in USA. > steve. >> Then, how you advertise only one IPv6 prefix to all and make the 2G go > steve. >> trough one STM4 ? > steve. >> > steve. >> > steve. >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > steve. >> > steve. >> steve. > > steve. >> steve. >Hi Christian, > steve. >> steve. > I am not seeing how v4 exhaustion, transition to v6, multihoming in v6 and destruction ov DFZ are correlated. > steve. >> steve. > > steve. >> steve. >If you took everything on v4 today and migrated it to v6 tomoro the routing table would not grow - actually by my calculation it should shrink (every ASN would only need one prefix to cover its current and anticipated growth). So we'll see 220000 routes reduce to 25000. > steve. >> steve. > > steve. >> steve. >The technology we have now is not driving multihoming directly and v4 vs v6 is not a factor there. > steve. >> steve. > > steve. >> steve. >So in what way is v6 destroying DFZ? > steve. >> steve. > > steve. >> steve. >Steve > steve. >> steve. > > steve. >> steve. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:13:50PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote: > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> Amazink! Some things on NANOG _never_ change. Trawling for trolls I must be. > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> If you want to emulate IPv4 and destroy the DFZ, yes, this is trivial. And you should go ahead and plan that migration. > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> As you well known, one of the core assumptions of IPv6 is that the DFZ policy stay intact, ostensibly to solve a very specific scaling problem. > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> So, go ahead and continue talking about migration while ignoring the very policies within which that is permitted to take place and don't let me interrupt that ranting. > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> Best Regards, > steve. >> steve. >> Christian > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> -- > steve. >> steve. >> Sent from my BlackBerry. > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> -----Original Message----- > steve. >> steve. >> From: Stephen Wilcox <[email protected]> > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:55:06 > steve. >> steve. >> To:Christian Kuhtz <[email protected]> > steve. >> steve. >> Cc:Andy Davidson <[email protected]>, [email protected], Donald Stahl <[email protected]>, [email protected] > steve. >> steve. >> Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams. > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> Steve > steve. >> steve. >> > steve. >> steve. >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote: > steve. >> steve. >> > Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is pretty pointless. > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > -- > steve. >> steve. >> > Sent from my BlackBerry. > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > -----Original Message----- > steve. >> steve. >> > From: Andy Davidson <[email protected]> > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33 > steve. >> steve. >> > To:Donald Stahl <[email protected]> > steve. >> steve. >> > Cc:[email protected] > steve. >> steve. >> > Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote: > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > >> That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer > steve. >> steve. >> > >> 7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3. If we'd (the > steve. >> steve. >> > >> community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to > steve. >> steve. >> > >> Google's applications whether the content came from a site hosted > steve. >> steve. >> > >> on a v4 address, or a v6 address, or even both. > steve. >> steve. >> > > If Google does not have v6 connectivity then how are they going to > steve. >> steve. >> > > crawl those v6 sites? > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > I think we're debating from very similar positions... > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > v6 isn't the ideal scenario of '96 extra bits for free', because if > steve. >> steve. >> > life was so simple, we wouldn't need to ask this question. > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. >> > Andy > steve. >> steve. >> > > steve. >> steve. > > steve. >
|