Re: Designing an IX with non-PI space peers

  • To: "Miguel A.L. Paraz" <map at iphil dot net>
  • Subject: Re: Designing an IX with non-PI space peers
  • From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso at cisco dot com>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:18:32 -0400
  • Cc: apops at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <199704281502.XAA05223 at marikit dot iphil dot net>
  • Sender:
    • At 11:02 PM 04/28/97 +0800, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote:
      >Stirring up the quiet APOPS list a bit... :)
      >How would you design an IX where some of the participants do not have
      >provider independent space, but want to run BGP?  Would you consider
      >assigning private ASNs for these?  Looks like a waste if they procure
      >ASNs that won't be in use elsewhere.  On the other hand, static routing
      >doesn't scale, we're already having some inconvenience with the PHIX which
      >only has 5 peers at present.
      I lean towards encouraging BGP peering in cases such as this, since BGP
      provides a higher granularity of policy demarcation. If the allocations
      came from the same provider, and exterior reachability is through the
      same allocating entity, this provides a high degree of aggregation for
      the visibility of these networks.
      >The peers that do BGP with their upstream and the rest of the world would
      >have to take care to filter these others out.
      True, but given the number of organizations, this should be nominal.
      >What if a given ISP with non-PI space wants to peer with multiple IXs
      >within the country?  Then their private ASNs would have to be unique
      >across every IX where they're at.
      Of course.
      >This leads me to the idea of allocating "country" IP space that is only 
      >routable/usable within a single country.  For example an organization here 
      >that is interested only in Philippines connectivity would get space from 
      >a registry that allocates from, say, 10/8, and makes sure these are unique?
      >People with true private IP needs can use 192.168/16.  Same would go
      >for the private ASN space so that people won't arbitrarily assign and
      >get dupes.
      I think you lost me here. If exterior reachability is required, then using
      RFC1918 space is a problem, unless you also deploy NAT. I would also suggest
      that NAT scaling is an issue which deserves close examination.
      - paul
      >This is also a powerful incentive for other providers with IPLs to
      >interconnect locally since the 10/8 space is not visible from the outside.
      >Your thoughts?
      >miguel a.l. paraz  <map at iphil dot net>
      >iphil communications, makati city, philippines
      To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apops-request at apnic dot net