RE: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

[Carlos Friacas <cfriacas@fccn.pt>]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Craig A. Huegen wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michel Py
> > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:52 PM
> > To: Carlos Friacas; global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> > Subject: RE: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus
> >
> > > Carlos Friacas wrote:
> > > These two "rules" imply that Provider Independent networks
> > > shall not exist ???
> > > IMHO, this is a good thing!
> >
> > IMHO, this is a mistake. What do large (non-ISP) companies want?
> > 1. Their own address space (because they don't want to be held hostage
> > by an operator).
> > 2. Multihoming.
>
> I'll second this and add comments similar to those I sent to multi6.
>
> Why shouldn't very large, multi-homed end sites be able to get PI
> address space?
>
> We're struggling with the addressing structure that should be used
> internally for Cisco IT.  The currently proposed scheme of handing one
> /48 per top-tier root of an end user's provider tree is simply not
> reasonable for the large, multi-homed end users.  Operation of such a
> network will be difficult at best, and very expensive:
>
> 1. The current scheme says that operators in end-user sites should
> assign a /64 from each of the /48's to links.  Cisco has nearly 15-20
> top-tier roots in its Internet connectivity structure globally.  In
> addition, the corporate HQ infrastructure is large enough that a /47 is
> necessary to maintain a scalable addressing model in the "site" (what we
> call "region") without completely overhauling the network (assumes
> applying a /64 where there's an IPv4 segment today).  Maintaining all of
> these prefixes across all segments is going to be very, very difficult.
>
> 2. Without significant operational overhead, the originating *host* in a
> multi-homed-to-multi-homed scenario picks both providers
> (inbound/outbound) based on common prefix bits, because it picks the
> source address and destination address to use, which are tied to
> providers.  Enterprise IT organizations want and need control over the
> policy of the network while multi-homed.  The host's selection of the
> routes to use (through its selection of addresses) tends to pull control
> away from the network operator and leaves it to the host, without
> significant operational configuration/overhead.
>
> 3. I've seen some comments that imply now that we have address
> deprecation, that renumbering is somehow a zero-cost process now, so
> that any amount of renumbering an end-user must do is a non-issue.
> That's absolutely not true -- it costs significant amounts of money (in
> terms of labor) to renumber a very large site.  We still have the same
> problem as IPv4, except that we've at least said that organizations get
> the same prefix size.


Thanks for your insights. Just as Michel Py's comments, your points of
view also give me other useful angles on the problem.



> I think that there is a solution gap for large enterprises -- we've
> covered the ISP model, we've looked at the smaller sites, but there
> hasn't been much thought about the very large networks.

The problem with the "smaller sites" if the "state a number" policy holds,
is not solved... what the policy is implying is... you are small, so you
dont get an alloc.
About the "large enterprises", well, its a very simple ideia, but why not
creating a category similar to the LIR category, but with the restriction
of not being allowed to assign to third-party (that would be a LIR!)
This would generate also a discussion on the size of allocation for this
LER (Large Enterprise Registry), but this would be a minor problem, no?



> /cah
>
> ---
> Craig A. Huegen, Lead Network Architect       C i s c o  S y s t e m s
> IT Transport, Network Design & Technology           ||        ||
> Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive          ||        ||
> San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                ||||      ||||
> email: chuegen@cisco.com       CCIE #2100      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
>


Regards,


./Carlos
                                                          "Networking is fun!"
-------------------                                        http://www.fccn.pt
<cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup
F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  fax: +351 218472167


-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net