[GLOBAL-V6] Re: up a few thousand meters

  • To: Thomas Narten <narten at us dot ibm dot com>
  • Subject: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: up a few thousand meters
  • From: Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore dot fi>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:36:08 +0200 (EET)
  • Cc: global-v6 at lists dot apnic dot net, <ipv6-wg at ripe dot net>
  • In-reply-to: <200202142136.g1ELaZa10903 at rotala.raleigh dot ibm dot com>
  • Sender: owner-global-v6@lists.apnic.net
    • On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Thomas Narten wrote:
      > > However, there are a few reasons why we, even though IPv6 does not solve 
      > > the problem, _can_ solve it:
      > > 1) organizations, however large, can be represented by one "dot", a /48.  
      > >    This enables us, at worst, to have O(organizations) routing table 
      > >    entries, not O(organizations * average number of nodes per 
      > >    organization).  The former is too big still, but it is still good news 
      > >    and makes aggregation and address space estimations easier.
      > I don't understand this comment at all. An O(organizations) size
      > routing table does not appear supportable in practice. How is one
      > result (that doesn't work) any better than another result that also
      > doesn't work?
      Sorry for being unclear; I didn't mean global routing table here.  What I
      meant is that /48 allocations make the job of an ISP much easier: the size
      of required address space is set by the number of customers, not their
      size; address space estimation is easier, and (hopefully) one block would
      suffice for an ISP for a long time, so global routing table would not be
      swamped by a number of prefixes per ISP either and aggregation would be 
      > One thing we want to be very careful about is putting in place
      > policies that we know are risky for the long term and would be hard to
      > reverse down the road without recreating a a haves vs. have nots
      > situation again.
      I feel that if we want results, we need more policies to cope with all the 
      corner case..
       1) something like modified Gert Doering's solution.  This would only be
      applied to _ISP's_ with _previous experience with allocations_ (e.g. with
      IPv4), and can surely be shown to be an ISP.  If the fact that isp X
      applied for space was public, this could be put under public review too.
       2) alternative policy for new players in the field which have no previous
      ISP experience with IPv4 or whatever.  They would just have to show some
      plans how they propose to spend their /32, like with Narten et al's global
      suggested policy.  There are not all that many of these.  Do we need to
      tear our hair before we have to?
       3) 1 and 2 which need a bigger space need to justify it with e.g. via 
      mechanisms in suggested global v6 policy
      Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
      Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
      Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
      - This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo at lists dot apnic dot net