Subject: RE: Moving forward on Site-Local and Local Addressing

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:24:59 -0700

> Todd T. Fries wrote:
> What requirement of site-local does provider
> independent addressing not provide?

We do not have PI addresses for IPv6, to begin with. And the reason we
don't is that as soon as you begin to think about them I can already
hear screams about having to carry an individual /48 in the routing
table for each home.

Yes, we need a PI-like solution but is has nothing to do with site-local
addresses; they are complementary not competing.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 01:57:38 +0200

> hear screams about having to carry an individual /48 in the routing

http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/

Then go to Distributed Looking Glass, enter 0::/0 as the prefix,
select the Bogies mode and hit the "lookup" button.
What was it again about /48's? It's already being done.
ISP's, especially in the APNIC region even tend to announce
both their /32 and /35. Most if not all ISP's don't even
aggregate at all.

As seen at 01:51 at the Abilene participant's router, when
only showing the prefixes for 2001:238::/32 is interresting: 

2001:238::/32         2001:4a0:0:ff00::1       1916 293 3425 17419    IGP 
2001:238::/32      >i 2001:468:12::1     100   3425 17419             IGP 
2001:238:100::/41  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:200::/41  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:882::/48  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:f82::/48  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:f84::/48  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:f85::/48  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:f86::/48  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:f87::/48  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:f88::/48  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:f89::/48  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:f8b::/48  >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:1000::/41 >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:1800::/41 >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 
2001:238:1900::/41 >i 2001:468:12::1     100   6939 6939 17715 17419  IGP 

Data Telekom's, Hurricane Electric's, TILab and Verat's routers
even shows /64's being announced _and_ not aggregated... fun fun...

At this moment you can announce almost anything you want apparently.
Upstream ISP's don't mind at all.
Fortunatly there are clued ISP's who do filter accordingly to:
http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
I would advise and even try to pursuade people to run them in strict mode...

> Yes, we need a PI-like solution but is has nothing to do with 
> site-local addresses; they are complementary not competing.

As you are probably one of the many people who really knows
that we need is: Multihoming ;)
I got some oddball ideas about it but I'll need to work
them out much better and do loads of research about it first.
(it would be a host-based solution, not a router one...)

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:45:41 +0200

> I would advise and even try to pursuade people to run them in strict 

I am still more worried about ever reaching a 1000 routes, or any 
significant number of routes...

- - kurtis -