Subject: Re: C000

From: Dan Lanciani <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:13:33 -0400 (EDT)

"Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[email-masked]> wrote:

|> But that's fine with me too.  I only suggest that the non-aggregable prefix
|> should not get into the core routing tables.  If someone wants to route it
|> by other means, why not?
|
|Eg: tunnels, presumably.  Yeah, I don't see a problem with that,
|if the Illuminati want a globally-routable PI network running
|over VPN tunnels, they can have one ... and organize their own
|route aggregation.

Don't think in terms of VPN tunnels; these simulate links and create
a virtual model of the net with equivalent problems.  Think in terms
of auto-tunnels like those used for 6to4.  Instead of looking inside
the v6 destination address to find the v4 tunnel destination you look
up (and cache) the v6 tunnel destination of the machine that knows how
to deliver your packet.

The nice thing about such a network is that it doesn't depend on route
aggregation in the first place.  Because the routing knowledge (i.e., which
tunnel destination do I need) is distributed across all the sites, the
scaling issues that afflict full-knowledge central-routing models do not
exist.

As has always been the case, everyone can have routable PI space at the
cost of an approximate doubling in header bloat.  (We could have done better
than that by embracing source routing directly, but it isn't clear that it
matters much now.)  The great thing about making unique "local" address
space available to end users is that the market will get to decide whether
routable PI space is worth that doubling.

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------