Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy

  • To: "Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen at cisco dot com>
  • Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy
  • From: Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore dot fi>
  • Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 21:57:14 +0300 (EEST)
  • Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley dot ibm dot com>, <global-v6 at lists dot apnic dot net>
  • In-reply-to: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0305191014370.1716-100000 at chuegen-w2k04.amer dot cisco dot com>
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6/>
  • List-help: <mailto:global-v6-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: Discussion of new global IPv6 policy development <global-v6.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:global-v6@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6>,<mailto:global-v6-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6>,<mailto:global-v6-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • Sender: global-v6-admin@lists.apnic.net
    • > On Fri, 16 May 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
      > 
      > > > On top of that, I do have one other concern...  how does an end-user
      > > > network obtain address space that would be routable when divided into the
      > > > separate geographic regions?  For example, if I want address space that I
      > > > can divide into chunks, each announced from a different Internet access
      > > > point, do I need to ask for a /32 for each of the routing points or should
      > > > the RIR's be advising ISP's that they should do filtering, if necessary,
      > > > at minimum_allocation + 4 bits, or something like that?  I realize the
      > > > RIR's don't want to guarantee routability, but they really should take it
      > > > into consideration.
      > >
      > > Do I take it that you'd want to advertise more specifics based on some
      > > geography in some regions?
      > >
      > > This begs two questions (for which I have some answers of my own, but I'd
      > > like to hear yours):
      > >
      > >  1) why not advertise just the one /32 everywhere?
      > 
      > Because I pay ISP's to bring traffic to me.  If I announce the /32
      > everywhere, then I have to build and manage my own Internet backbone to
      > carry the traffic globally (in parallel with my internal/clean WAN).  That
      > amounts to paying two service providers to carry the traffic where I need
      > it.
      
      I don't quite understand this, so I take it there may be some unstated 
      assumptions here.
      
      You mean that if you have two physically separate sites with each e.g. /33
      block, and would announce the /32 block at both points, you would have to
      have more extensive & expensive internal WAN (carrying the other half, /33
      to the other physical location) to the -- and your WAN could not handle
      it?
      
      This seems to call for separate addresses to separate sites under 
      different ISPs.  Oh.. that was called PA.
      
      > >  2) would those more specifics be scoped tightly to a routing point (that
      > > is, could one assume, that it might be possible to negotiate a special
      > > pass-through for the local affected ISP's for the more specific)?
      > 
      > It might be possible, but I'm looking for a solution that's more global in
      > nature that wouldn't require me to negotiate with tens or hundreds of
      > local providers.  One of the key requirements I asked to be put into the
      > multi6 requirements draft was that the end user would not have to maintain
      > business relationships / negotiations with anyone but his service
      > providers, so that an end user would not have to worry about maintaining a
      > business relationship with hundreds of service providers around the globe.
      
      Yes, I agree it's unscalable .. especially if it would have to be done 
      further than the first hop.
      
      -- 
      Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
      Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
      Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings