[v6ops] Fwd: I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

[Joel Jaeggli]

On Sep 26, 2010, at 2:11, Michael Sinatra <michael at rancid.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> On 09/25/10 12:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Michael,
>> 
>> Again, cross-posting to v6ops - I think your arguments must be discussed
>> there. (Normally, I avoid cross-posting like the plague.)
>> 
>> Three comments on your points below:
>> 
>> 1. I agree that it is not the IETF's place to assert policy
>> in this area. Actually we are not supposed to, under the terms
>> of RFC2860 (which, as it happens, Fred and I both signed in ink).
>> 
>> 2. But it is our place to document the technical implications
>> of various alternatives, as they affect the future scaling of
>> the Internet. It's certainly correct that the operator community
>> has most of the data and experience, of course. So I would
>> advocate that any IETF document in this area is written with
>> the benefit of that experience, and that it keeps away from
>> asserting policy.
> 
> I heartily agree, and I would support a statement from the IETF that carefully laid out the implications.  I think these are well-known in the ops community, but it doesn't hurt to say them again.
> 
> However, I also think the IETF can do better than say "let's go back to the good old PA days."  Either offer a set of solutions (including perhaps something that limits how many prefixes an AS can orginate in IPv6).

Given that there's no real bound on getting additional ASes I'm not sure that heading down that road has the implication you think it does. Someone who qualifies for one as qualifies for more.

>  The shift toward PA addressing can be one of several options.

Networks that need to multi home in v4 are going to need to in v6. So long as we acknowledge that reality we're fine.

> Then let the ops communities and RIRs choose the options.  The other possibility is to keep quiet and let the other communities come up with options.
> 
>> 3. Finally, you say:
>> 
>>>> On the other hand, having the IETF work on new
>>>> protocols that scale better would probably be appreciated.
>> 
>> Er, yes, but see my previous message - we've been on this
>> topic in the IRTF and IETF for ten years and more, and it's hard.
> 
> You'll get no argument here.  The general issue of providing a massively scalable address space while limiting the DFZ routing table is a very hard one--and it demands difficult solutions.  I very much appreciate the work the IETF is doing toward this end.  At the same time, I don't think the current draft under consideration moves us any closer to solving the problem.
> 
> michael
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>