Subject: Re: [[email-masked]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:17:12 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Kevin Loch <[email-masked]>

    > Nobody in that room would have supported a policy they actually
    > believed would blow up the Internet.

Who was in the room, BTW? How many of those 60 were from ISP's?

Also, does that group have any commitments from ISP's (particularly the
large global backbones) to carry these PI addresses? (I assume the group is
expecting that PI addresses will be supported by the routing, not by some
as-yet-undefined other mechanism.)

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 14:24:16 -0400 (EDT)

> Who was in the room, BTW? How many of those 60 were from ISP's?

Noel,

Jason had the chair ask how many folks in the room were in the Default
Free Zone, and 20 people raised their hands.  So from that I conclude at
the very least that 14 of those 20 did not oppose the PI proposal.  I
suspect a number of them, like myself, actually supported the proposal as
a good balance between the need for workable multihoming and the desire
not to pass a "PI for everyone" policy that would explode the routing
table.

Bear in mind that the number of IPv4 PI blocks ARIN has given out is
rather small, and there's little reason to think that will change in the
near term.

> as-yet-undefined other mechanism.)

I suspect they will indeed be accepted.  At least initially, all the
transit providers I know of will accept such routes from their customers,
and I suspect they will begin accepting them from their peers as well as
multihoming enterprises demand it.

-Scott

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 20:30:24 +0200

> as-yet-undefined other mechanism.)

I guess actually that the larger ISP's are not too happy about "PI
space" in general, as with the Aggregate system they can nicely lock-in
customers.

As for "global backbones", check GRH (http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/)
and look at the amount of /48's and up seen in the routing tables and
which transits are providing these in BGP today. Most, if not all, do
this thus this will pose no problem whatsoever.

Let's see how it all will take of, when GRH shows a large increase in
new allocations we'll notice quickly if this is a success or not.

We'll max out the 16-bit ASN space first anyhow ;)

In the very very very long run, your undefined mech, we might end up
using these PI /48's for 'identifiers', using the upstream's /48 as the
locator space. No renumbering will thus be required, only some border
changes, and the tricky bit: a signaling protocol for notifying the
other end who we are so they can map it back to the PI /48. IHMO that
will become a real solution for many problems. Announcing multiple
prefixes and using source-address selection for instance is far from
pretty.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:22:40 -0400 (EDT)

> the very least that 14 of those 20 did not oppose the PI proposal.

its a bit harder to say than that - the 2nd question (how many from
default free ISPs) was done asking only one person per "default free" ISP to 
rase their hand - the hands showed that there were one or more reps from 20
default free ISPs in the room. Since a number of organizations sent more than 
one person the 14 Thomas mentions is the low end of the number of 
the 60 that were from default free ISPs since there was no 
one-hand-per-isp limit on the 1st show of hands.

in fact - most of the people in the room were from ISPs of one size or another

Scott