I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

[Michael K. Smith - Adhost]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Li [mailto:tony.li at tony.li]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 9:13 AM
> To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter; ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt
> 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> > I'm trying to wrap my brain around how PA space is going to be
"better"
> than PI space.  Follow my potentially flawed logic.
> >
> > - I have a /32 that I announce through my various upstreams - no
more
> specifics, just one /32.
> > - I get a /48 from my upstream out of their /32.  I announce my /48
through
> my various providers
> > - I pressure my provider into announcing my /48 as well for traffic
> engineering
> 
> 
> Here's your problem.  No routing architecture can scale if everyone
injects
> every arbitrary prefix into the DFZ.
> 
Understood.
> 
> > - Now we have a /32 and a /48 in the table.
> > - Rinse, repeat
> >
> > How is this better?  Is it really anyone's assumption that I should
be forced
> into a one-upstream solution and that I would find that acceptable?
> 
> 
> No, but if you had PA with ILNP, you'd have N different prefixes, one
from
> each of your upstreams.  Your hosts would seamlessly switch between
each
> of these prefixes.  None of them would need to be globally visible and
would
> be part of our upstreams aggregates.
> 
> Tony

Okay, so now I'm a content provider that *still* has to associate IP
addresses to domain names for SSL-based services.  I have four transit
providers and about 80 direct peers.  I now have to attach "an" IP (/64
likely) for each host from each provider to ensure reachability.  And
what of my peers?  What will I announce to them?

Regards,

Mike