On 12/23/2009 12:31 AM, George Bonser wrote:
Apologies in advance for the top post.
Likewise. These are general comments, though, so I don't feel too
badly... :-)
It sounds like you're on the right track. You discovered the 2009-5
Multiple Discrete Networks draft policy, which should allow you a
separate /48 for each discrete network. That is somewhat orthogonal to
the question of whether you should get separate resources from each RIR
whose region you operate a network in. If the networks on different
continents are discrete, I think the answer there is yes.
I'll also point out another resource for discussing topics like this,
particularly if it appears that a change in policy would be needed to
accommodate your needs: ARIN's Public Policy Mailing List (PPML),
https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/index.html. That's where
2009-5 came from, and I know there are still some needs unmet by current
ARIN IPv6 address policy, so we're always looking for more good ideas,
and feedback on the ones being discussed. At the moment, there are some
very interesting discussions ongoing about how to rewrite ARIN IPv6
address policy to simplify it while making provider independent
addressing more widely available and making it easier to filter traffic
engineering deaggregates without accidentally filtering multihomed
networks. And on the IPv4 side, there are two policy proposals on the
docket to lower ARIN's minimum allocation size to /23 or /24.
I encourage anyone on this list who's interested in these topics to
browse the PPML archives, look over the full list of active draft
policies and policy proposals at https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/,
and subscribe to PPML. We need all the input we can get.
Thanks,
Scott Leibrand
elected volunteer member of the ARIN Advisory Council, but speaking only
for myself
My initial idea was to use a /48, divide it up into /56 nets for each facility
with /64 subnets within each facility. We would announce a /48 to our transit
providers that I would expect them to announce in turn to their peers and we
would also announce the more specific /56 nets to the transit providers that I
would expect them not to announce to their peers. My current vlan requirements
per facility would support such an addressing plan. In order to make that
work, we would need the same transit providers in each region as our locations
are not meshed internally. We don’t have dedicated connectivity from the US to
the UK or China, for example. Currently that is not a problem as far as
connectivity is concerned as my US providers appear in Europe and my China
provider appears in the US. BUT when I consider the possibilities of South
America and Africa and finding a transit provider that has a robust presence
everywhere, my choices are very limited. I need to be multihomed and I need to
be provider agnostic in my addressing.
Using that scheme above does create some potential performance issues. While my
transit provider collects the traffic from a remote location and routes it to
the more specific location in my network, If a provider in Europe, for example,
sees only the /48 announced from the US, maybe they haul the traffic across an
ocean to a point where they peer with my provider … who then must haul it back
to Europe to the /56 corresponding to the destination because the original
traffic source doesn’t see my /56 unless they are using the same transit
provider I am.
Then based on earlier discussion on the list a while back, I was concerned that
a /48 wasn’t even enough to get me connected to some nets that were apparently
filtering smaller than a /48 but my mind is somewhat eased in that respect and
I believe that a /48 announced from space where /48s are issued will be
accepted by most people.
Then I was informed of ARIN 2009-5 which seems aimed at our situation; data
centers widely separated by large geographical distances that are fairly
autonomous and aren’t directly connected by dedicated links. It now seems that
we (and the rest of the Internet) might be better served if we get a RIPE AS
and net block for our Europe operations, and APNIC AS and net block for our
APAC operations and get a regional /48 that I can split into /56 nets for the
various satellite facilities within that region as those satellite offices CAN
be directly connected to the regional data center which would act as the
regional communications hub.
There are probably 16 different ways to slice this but I would like to get it
as close to “right” as possible to prevent us having to renumber later while at
the same time not taking more space than we need. A /48 per region seems like
the right way to go at the present time. So we would have a /48 for the US, a
/48 for Asia (and possibly one /48 dedicated to China) and a /48 for Europe.
Satellite facilities would collect a /56 (or two or three) out of that regional
block for their local use. Then I am free from being nailed to the same
providers globally and have less chance of traffic crossing an ocean twice.
The probability of needing 200 /48s in the next several years is pretty slim
and do not warrant our getting a /32 when currently three or four /48 nets
will fill the requirements.
Thanks again for the input, Mick.
George
From: Mick O'Rourke [mailto:mkorou...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:43 PM
To: Joel Jaeggli
Cc: George Bonser; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc.
Is the idea behind the /48 being looked at (keeping in mind a mixed IPv4/IPv6
environment&
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5375.txt<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5375.txt%20> page
8) to have a /64 per smaller branch or VLAN, larger campus /56, and advertise out the /48
for the region?; My previous thinking and biggest thinking point is enterprise level
address allocation policy, impacts to device loopbacks, voice vlans, operational
simplification requirements for management and security layers etc. The feel overall has
been towards needing to have a /32, a /56 per site (campus to small branch) and
internally within the site /64 per VLAN. A /48 becomes too small, a /32 very much
borderline. Is this a similar scenario for you? How are you justifying a /48 vs a /32?
