Dear Jari;
On Sep 13, 2007, at 4:24 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Michael,
Here's a decision table for you:
1. Do you need addresses that are routable from the global
Internet, from anywhere?
(Its not clear to me that you do, because you only need to
do that within your own network and a couple of well
known external sites perhaps.)
a. If not, maybe you should look at ULAs. RFC 4193 allows
you to get these addresses randomly, and you do not
need to ask permission from anyone to do it. You could
have your addresses today if you wanted to.
b. Proposals have been floated about non-random ULAs
as well. Right now we do not have one, but I'm not
sure you need this for your particular case.
2. If you do need addresses that are routable, is it
sufficient for you to work with provider-aggregated
addresses that you get from your ISP (not from ARIN)?
If yes, get the addresses and use them!
3. If you do need addresses that are routable AND
you have multiple ISP connections and want to stay
away from an address renumbering if you need
to change ISPs, then you need PI. You are starting
to get PI space, but as numerous PI items in the
global routing table cause pain for routers, this
will likely be available only for larger enterprises.
I do not really agree with this. First, the routing tables do not
care if you have PI or PA space, just whether
it is announced or not. If you are already announcing PA space, and
getting into the DFZ, it does not harm the tables if you change to PI
space. Second, one of reasons I helped to write and push through ARIN
2002-3 (micro assignments) was that I felt that small multi-homers
(i.e., enterprises that were multi-homed but did not need large
address allocations) did not constitute a threat to the routing
tables, and that has been borne out by experience. Neither the growth
nor the bloat in the routing tables is being driven by small multi-
homers. This has been discussed at great length on ARIN PPML and
other lists.
Yes, I gave numbers to Vince Fuller about millions of multi-homers,
but that was to set an upper bound on the process. I do no believe
that every small business will rush out and multi-home, no matter how
automated BGP becomes. The small businesses that I know that multi-
home (mostly high traffic volume companies providing network
services, such as video streaming) have a business need to do so, and
it is not realistic nor in my opinion proper to assume that they will
not be able to do so, one way or the other.
There is ongoing work to try to design a better
routing system that would be capable of keeping
tens of millions of prefixes or more, in the IRTF.
If and when that work succeeds, it would be possible
to allocate everyone their own PI prefix. We are
not there yet.
In any case, FWIW, I think it would make sense for RIR
address allocation rules to allow IPv6-only operations
and not just those that need both IPv4 and IPv6 address
space.
I fully agree here. In fact, I would say that IPv6 will have truly
succeeded when business requests start coming in
that do _not_ want IPv4 space. This should be encouraged, not
discouraged.
Jari
Regards
Marshall
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf