Re: [GLOBAL-V6]IPv6 Allocation Policy

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Craig A. Huegen wrote:
> 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