Subject: draft-baker-v6ops-13-multihoming-analysis-00

From: Peter Sherbin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 19:55:09 -0800 (PST)

Fred,

More comments
p.3 says "Fortune 500" while p. 20 has "Fortune 1000".
p.18 above the diagram "the links from B<->A and B<->A were shorter", why two B<->A?
p.19 near the top "issues... relate to human stupidity". How about "human error"?
p.27 section 5. "From the author's perspective" when the draft has two authors.

This is a good summary of what is going on plus projections. But overall it feels
that the current architecture constrains the market and it does not scale. The draft
illustrates the need for flexible PI addressing with the model such as "a service
domain. That domain could as easily be the customers of a cooperative as the
citizens of a government". Any given tax authority is a good proxy for such
cooperative and it could assume a mechanical function of the distribution and
management of PI.

Providers would get through RIR an independent set of geographically rigid
aggregation points, eg. ASN. A new protocol could be needed to combine PI+ASN for
scalable routing(?)

Thanks,

Peter

____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:33:37 -0500

concatenating the ASN into the IP address would certainly be one way  
of providing a scalable routing locator. Check the archives, and you  
will find that at one time (perhaps a decade back) I suggested that  
as a quick method for the initial assignment of addresses - simply  
give every current AS a prefix numerically related to its AS number.  
I don't believe that to be required for scalability, however, which  
is why I don't bring it up in the document. What I do see as required  
is the ability to limit the number of prefixes advertised to a number  
comparable to the number of assigned AS numbers, and constrain those  
to people who actually need an AS number from a BGP perspective.

We have been asked to move this conversation to [email-masked] aka  
[email-masked].

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:37:55 +0000

so... are we bringing back RFC 1897?

---

From: Peter Sherbin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:11:21 -0800 (PST)

>  so... are we bringing back RFC 1897?

Would it work to apply RFC 1897 as:
- ASN has 16 bits and there is a room for a larger ASN if needed
- EU would still get 128-bit IPv6 address with the leading 32 bits set to zero (to
be replaced with ASN at the network connection point)
- IPv4 is built in meaning that EU can keep their current IPv4 and put them right
into IPv6 easing the transition
- /32 provides big enough space to any EU

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 22:36:18 -0500

>  so... are we bringing back RFC 1897?

I'm not recommending that. Sounds like Peter might.