Michael K. Smith - Adhost
mksmith at adhost.com
Tue Sep 28 18:26:41 CEST 2010
> -----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
> > I'm trying to wrap my brain around how PA space is going to be
> than PI space. Follow my potentially flawed logic.
> > - I have a /32 that I announce through my various upstreams - no
> specifics, just one /32.
> > - I get a /48 from my upstream out of their /32. I announce my /48
> my various providers
> > - I pressure my provider into announcing my /48 as well for traffic
> Here's your problem. No routing architecture can scale if everyone
> every arbitrary prefix into the DFZ.
> > - 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
> 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
> each of your upstreams. Your hosts would seamlessly switch between
> of these prefixes. None of them would need to be globally visible and
> be part of our upstreams aggregates.
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?
More information about the ipv6-ops