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: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: Discussion of new global IPv6 policy development <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>,<>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>,<>
  • Sender:
    • > 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
      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