North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
JAK> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:51:16 -0800 (PST) JAK> From: John A. Kilpatrick JAK> Maybe I missed it, but is there something in your solution that keeps JAK> dual-homed leaves from having to renumber when changing ISPs? In your Note: I'm approaching this from a "something to do today" IPv4 standpoint that also works for IPv6. Subnets lengths are IPv4. I suggested IP policies similar to current ones: longer than /24 requires renumbering no matter what, [/24,some_boundary] is a chunk from provider space, and shorter than some_boundary may be PI. Note that /24 is arbitrary; I use it because that is what's found in the wild today. This could be changed. Likewise, some_boundary has existing values. Others proposed region-specific IPs. I once believed strongly in that, then had mixed feelings... and now believe we should perhaps look at Australia. In a word, no, I'm not approaching PI space. It's attractive, but requires bigger routing tables or source routing. IPv6 with /32 prefixes (conducieve to exact-match hardware) handles the former. SHIM6 resembles the latter. Want to try SHIM6? Build an IPv4 analog today: Use multihop eBGP or similar to advertise one's upstream routers, then expect the remote end to loose source route the return traffic. JAK> concept, is there some "ownership" of the address space on the part of the JAK> customer? I know that being able to swing to a new provider (due one of a JAK> hundred reasons, including Layer 8 manangement decisions) without having to Put more directly, IP ranges should be separate from routing policy, even for networks of only 10 hosts. I'll address this in a separate thread. Folks, brush up on your procmail skills... JAK> renumber or suffer significant downtime is one of the things that makes JAK> dual-homing appealing. PI space and multihoming are orthogonal. A network can have one without the other. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: firstname.lastname@example.org -*- email@example.com -*- firstname.lastname@example.org Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.