headers
Kurt Erik Lindqvist | 3 Dec 20:22
Picon

Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)


(I trimmed the CC list...)

On måndag, dec 2, 2002, at 13:15 Europe/Stockholm, Iljitsch van Beijnum 
wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>
>>> The main issue is, devise an exit plan before you let stuff pollute 
>>> the
>>> routing tables: part of the consensus should be an agreement on how 
>>> the
>>> advertisements will be limited in the future, so that only very few
>>> sites get advertised that way. For example, maybe we should only 
>>> agree
>>> that a given ISP can only allocate a limited number of "routable 
>>> /48".
>>> Maybe a condition for accepting such a BGP advertisement will be that
>>> the /48 should be of the form xxxx:xxxx:000y, where xxxx:xxxx is the
>>> /32
>>> allocated to the provider -- this would limit inflation to 16 entries
>>> per provider...
>
>> I think that is to few, but the concept is actually pretty nice. Then
>> again, I am not sure it will have much effect.
>
> X per ISP is not going to work as there are global ISPs and very, very
> local ones.

Well, what I meant was that the day an ISP run out of their PI blocks
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Pekka Savola | 5 Dec 08:23
Picon

same or different address block for PI? [Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> What is it that we think we gain with these specific blocks, be it for 
> site-locals or multihoming? The number of routes are not going to be 
> less. If the RIRs use up their current assignments -good! Then at least 
> we have a IPv6 network from where we can start drawing conclusions. The 
> current routing table is mostly 6bone space that is temporary and 
> should go away. That leaves us with the ~250 sub-TLAs currently 
> assigned. I am not worried yet.

If PI allocations are from a specific block, advertisements from there can
be denied very easily everywhere in DFZ, leaving just private
arrangements.

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Iljitsch van Beijnum | 4 Dec 10:54
Favicon

Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> (I trimmed the CC list...)

Good, I got some of your messages three times...

> > X per ISP is not going to work as there are global ISPs and very, very
> > local ones.

> Well, what I meant was that the day an ISP run out of their PI blocks
> they will just continue down the address block, just as ISPs today are
> announcing more specifics than their RIR allocation and complaining
> that these are not accepted. I don't see why we think people would
> behave differently just because this is IPv6....

We think that because they do. At the moment, at least. Also, we want
them to, as current IPv4 routing practices aren't exactly great. On the
one hand it is good that people want to keep the IPv6 routing table
clean, on the other hand we don't want to be so restrictive it doesn't
work. Remember that most people have a good reason to pollute the IPv4
routing table. Just not allowing this without offering alternatives
isn't good enough.

> > It would be much, much better if we could agree that everyone does this
> > the same way. Having a route in 90% of the routers isn't much better
> > than having it in 100% of the routers, but being able to reach 90% of
> > the internet is much worse than being able to reach 100%.

> That is the way it works for many (perhaps most) of the multihomers
> today. 90% is better than the 0% we have today.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kurt Erik Lindqvist | 6 Dec 17:23
Picon

Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)

>> Well, what I meant was that the day an ISP run out of their PI blocks
>> they will just continue down the address block, just as ISPs today are
>> announcing more specifics than their RIR allocation and complaining
>> that these are not accepted. I don't see why we think people would
>> behave differently just because this is IPv6....
>
> We think that because they do. At the moment, at least. Also, we want
> them to, as current IPv4 routing practices aren't exactly great. On the
> one hand it is good that people want to keep the IPv6 routing table
> clean, on the other hand we don't want to be so restrictive it doesn't
> work. Remember that most people have a good reason to pollute the IPv4
> routing table. Just not allowing this without offering alternatives
> isn't good enough.

Well, let me restate what I said in Atlanta:

1) We have no idea how popular multihoming is in reality. If it turns 
out my DLS subscriber charges me $50 a month for a single homed 
connection and $500 a month for multihoming this might not be as 
popular as we think. One thing I think we must realize is that a) IPv6 
will be more expensive that IPv4, b) multihoming will not be for free.

2) We don't understand what effects the "better starting point" with 
aggregation will have on the routing table.

What I suggest will give us experience with the above and then we have 
some facts to discuss around. Today we only have wet dreams.

>
> Disagree. People who multihome care about their connectivity more than
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ronald van der Pol | 5 Dec 11:52

Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:54:11 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> BTW, I'm writing an article about if/when IPv6 will be adopted for a
> Dutch magazine. I'm still looking for good quotes from IPv6-skeptics.  :-)

Wrong question. IPv6 *is* being adopted at an exponential rate. See
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ipv6/measurements/index.en.html

	rvdp
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kurt Erik Lindqvist | 13 Dec 10:53
Picon

Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)

>> BTW, I'm writing an article about if/when IPv6 will be adopted for a
>> Dutch magazine. I'm still looking for good quotes from IPv6-skeptics. 
>>  :-)
>
> Wrong question. IPv6 *is* being adopted at an exponential rate. See
> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ipv6/measurements/index.en.html
>

Well, with low enough relative numbers you can make anything grow 
exponentially. :)

- kurtis -
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christian Huitema | 9 Dec 07:40
Picon
Favicon

RE: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)

There are two forms of multi-homing that can happen quite quickly.

The obvious first is multi-homing a site to both native IPv6 and "6to4". Assuming that you have at least one
global IPv4 for the site, multi-homing to 6to4 does not involve any extra payment for connectivity and
does improve communication performance when exchanging data with 6to4 destinations.

The second one is multi-homing to both a fixed connection and a wireless connection. For example, I could
connect my home network to a cable modem service and to a local wireless community such as "Seattle
wireless." Again, not much extra payment involved; the wireless stuff is likely to be handled by a couple
of motivated teen-agers...

-- Christian Huitema

________________________________

From:	 Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis <at> kurtis.pp.se]	
Sent:	 Fri 12/6/2002 8:23 AM	
To:	 Iljitsch van Beijnum	
Cc:	 ipv6mh; multi6 <at> ops.ietf.org	
Subject:	 Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long) 	
 	

>> Well, what I meant was that the day an ISP run out of their PI blocks 
>> they will just continue down the address block, just as ISPs today are 
>> announcing more specifics than their RIR allocation and complaining 
>> that these are not accepted. I don't see why we think people would 
>> behave differently just because this is IPv6.... 
> 
> We think that because they do. At the moment, at least. Also, we want 
> them to, as current IPv4 routing practices aren't exactly great. On the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Iljitsch van Beijnum | 5 Dec 12:28
Favicon

Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Ronald van der Pol wrote:

> > BTW, I'm writing an article about if/when IPv6 will be adopted for a
> > Dutch magazine. I'm still looking for good quotes from IPv6-skeptics.  :-)

> Wrong question. IPv6 *is* being adopted at an exponential rate. See
> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ipv6/measurements/index.en.html

I'm not sure what that proves... So the increase in IPv6 ASes is 50 -
100 % a year. At 100%, it will take 6 years for IPv6 to catch up with
IPv4, at 50% it may never happen because of the autonomous growth in
IPv4 ASes. But that's not even very important: as of this week, you may
see AS12854 in the statistics. However, in IPv6 this is usually just a
single box with no real services available: nothing compared with what
you see if you use IPv4.

At the same time, v6 is making progress all the time, and large scale
adoption could happen very quickly, since most of what we need is in
place or getting close. But there's no telling when this will happen.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ronald van der Pol | 5 Dec 13:11

Re: (ipv6mh) the Rebel Alliance meetings in Atlanta (long)

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:28:37 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> > Wrong question. IPv6 *is* being adopted at an exponential rate. See
> > http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ipv6/measurements/index.en.html
> 
> I'm not sure what that proves...

It shows that IPv6 is being adopted, the question you asked. You were
not talking about massive deployment or comparing it with IPv4.

	rvdp
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane