[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus
Thomas,
>> 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).
> Thomas Narten wrote:
> This is not scalable. Hence, doing so would potentially create a
> huge mess.
This is scalable with geographically aggregatable PI addresses.
>> John L Crain wrote:
>> I do believe there have been Internet Drafts on geographically
>> based addressing schemes though. Not sure of the ID's names
>> though?
> Tim Chown wrote:
> The ones by Tony Hain, I believe.
> draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-02.txt
> draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-02.txt
As Tim mentioned, a fine example. Although MHAP has chosen a different
path, Tony's PI has some interesting features.
> Thomas Narten wrote:
> Let me also note that discussion about the feasibility of some
> of those proposals was, shall we say, spirited.
Because at the time this was discussed, there was no mechanism to avoid
the building of a physical infrastructure that map geographical
aggregation boundaries; no longer the case.
>> 2. Multihoming.
> One doesn't need portable addresses to achieve multihoming. One
> can obtain a prefix from an upstream, and advertise that prefix
> to other ISPs
This is unrealistic. Not only The other ISPs would very reluctantly
advertise a prefix that is not theirs, but this will create a
filtering-per-customer situation that would be and administrative
nightmare.
> and maybe even the DFZ.
Talking about creating a huge mess, leaking these PA prefixes into the
DFZ's routing table would be a sure way to go.
> The details of that are outside the scope of RIR policies.
They certainly are, but the consequence (every would-be multihomer
getting a sTLA) needs to be part of the thinking of RIR policies.
Michel
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net
