Subject: RE: Fourth alternative [was Re: Moving forward ....]

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:32:11 -0700

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> I guess my concern is that ISPs end up routing the address
> space in Bob's proposal and that we'll have another PI problem.
> So while there's nothing wrong with Bob's proposal in theory
> (indeed I prefer it vastly to the other SL approaches), if
> customers believe they have stable addresses we could end up
> right back where we were in the early '90s. I don't see this
> happening for DSL customers but it could happenfor medium to
> large size businesses who have the power of the purse.
 
It is possible to write sufficient restrictions and avoid both the drift towards announcing /48 in the DMZ and using the unique local addresses in a NATv6 configuration. The requirement is that the site local replacement be "special". We can for example request that backbone routers ignore announces that fall in the special prefix unless a /48 has been explicitly. As a result, even if someone convinces their local ISP, they will not be able to get connectivity to the whole Internet, and the addresses will not be usable as "globally routed PI." In fact, we should do that.
 
-- Christian Huitema

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 14:24:17 -0700

Tim,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> - If globally unique IPv6 address space is free, I am willing
>> to give these $2.5k/yr to my ISP to announce my /48. 

> Tim Chown wrote:
> Well, the ISP announces it, but how far does it get?

It gets to you, where you filter it but it does get to you. You filter
it  and here's why: as a NREN, your "customers" don't come to you and
say "you have 2 solutions: 1. you keep my business and here's extra cash
to "forget" to filter prefixes; 2. someone else will be happy to have
both my business and the extra cash.

So you do have the luxury to do things the right way, which we thank you
for. However, for for-profit ISPs that do not have the taxpayer's money
to create a network, the choice is not as easy and will be choosing
between a) do things right and don't capture the emerging IPv6 market
and b) look the other way and get extra cash much needed to finance
building the IPv6 infrastructure.

There is a critical mass factor in this. Sure, if it's only one guy
trying to get his prefix announced, it goes nowhere. Trouble is that
announcing prefixes, although it does create problems in the long run,
solves so many issues in the short term that every enterprise is going
to do it.

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:15:25 -0700

>>> Erik Nordmark wrote:
>>> FWIW, I think a multi6 solution with id/loc separation will 
>>> make the local addressing concerns go away. 

If it provides something that is almost as good as PI.

>> Tony Hain wrote:
>> Any separation will require a mapping infrastructure to
>> dynamically bind the values back together.

> Keith Moore wrote:
> agreed.

Ditto.

>> Such a mapping infrastructure
>> will have all of the scaling concerns of DNS,

> Nor is there any inherent reason that propagation of updates
> has to be like DNS.

Agree.

> plus the constraint that its convergence times are extremely short.
> There is no well-known technology for running a global multi-master,
> cross trust boundary, database, with appropriate caching for scale,
> and convergence times that are useful for application failover.

It is not needed as long as the id/loc system does not need the full
database to be fully replicated all over the world at all times.

In other words, the requirements for that global multi-master, cross
trust boundary database can be lessened by an id/loc system that could
accommodate a partial picture as a bootstrap phase for its own mapping,
and the convergence time can be brought by the id/loc protocol instead
of database convergence.

> What would you call BGP then?  Granted, it's not exactly a database,
> but it's certainly "multi-master" and "cross trust boundary" and it
> at least attempts to converge within a timeframe in which apps can
> fail over.

I think that for practical purposes it's close enough of the definition
of a database. Granted, it is not nearly as complex as OSPF but it could
be called a database.

Michel.