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

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 21:40:52 -0700

Eliot / Bob,

>> Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Is this sufficient?  Would it better to also include an
>> "operational considerations" or similar section? More text
>> on why this is important?

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> Venders speak the language of money,

So do operators and so do enterprises. Allow me to share the way it
works for enterprises:

- I am already paying $2.5k/yr to ARIN for portable IPv4 address space.
- Although I could do without, I am ready to pay another $2.5k/yr for
portable IPv6 address space (when IPv6 takes off, that is).
- If globally unique IPv6 address space is free, I am willing to give
these $2.5k/yr to my ISP to announce my /48. 
- On top of that, if doing so also solves the IPv6 multihoming issue,
where do I sign?

On the operator side, I do acknowledge that we have some of them around
that do what they are supposed to and filter, thanks to people that
promote routing table health such as Jeroen and Gert.
That being said, the hard facts are that a) as of today 42% of my IPv6
BGP routing table is made of /48s, /64s and other crud and b) lots of
ISP will think twice before refusing my $2.5k/yr to announce my prefix.

> and that overrides whatever language is in the draft :-(

Which is doubly lame, because 1) I should not offer the money and 2)
they should not accept it; bottom line though is that both them and I
run a business, not a charity.

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: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:29:55 +0100

> these $2.5k/yr to my ISP to announce my /48. 

Well, the ISP announces it, but how far does it get?

> ISP will think twice before refusing my $2.5k/yr to announce my prefix.

That 42% is skewed due to IPv6 not being considered a production service
(and the traffic volume is low) by many people carrying/transiting the traffic.

Tim

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:41:34 +0200

> ISP will think twice before refusing my $2.5k/yr to announce my prefix.

That is also because the ISPs realize that the current ~400 routes are 
far from a problem. Actually the 130k routes in IPv4 is not creating a 
problem either. Other characteristics of BGP might, but I haven't seen 
a reference to the number of routes creating a problem. Yes, they will 
cost the ISPs money, but that is why they are accepting your money.

Filtering routes have it's advantages, especially in IPv4. With 400 
routes, I still fail to see the problem. On the contrary, it tells me 
we have plenty of time to solve the real problem.

- - kurtis -