geo-based routing [Re: IPv6 news]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt will be quite of your liking. Not at all. This proposal is all about allocating addresses based on country boundaries and I reject this model. The Internet is a network of cities, not countries. T

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport protocols. The transport protocols, well they generally act on behalf of something which can do the lookup and supply transport with right addre

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote: We all know how well carrier phone number routing and number portability works, don't we? EWORKSFORME (and everyone else here). Took a good bit of very firm pressure from ComReg, the telecoms wathdog/regulator here, to overcome negative reaction f

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Also, if everybody got their equal size subnet delegation from each ISP then it shouldnt be that much of a problem to run two "networks" side-by-side by using the subnet part of the delegation equal to both networks, but keep the prefix separate.

Re: IPv6 daydreams

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, David Barak wrote: Wrong issue. What I'm unhappy about is not the size of the address - you'll notice that I didn't say "make the whole address space smaller." What I'm unhappy about is the exceedingly sparse allocation policies You can allocate to 100% density on the

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote: True. Even better, you get to change this binding (mobility) or have multiple bindings (multihoming). Indeed. True enough, but unfortunately, it's not done in a way that we can make use of the identifier in the routing subsystem or in the transport prot

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Li) writes: > Specifically, the IAB should call for a halt to IPv6 deployment until > consensus is reached on a scalable routing architecture. I realize > that this is painful, but continuing to deploy is simply creating a > v6 mortgage that we cannot afford to pay

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Fred, So the routing problem was looked at, and making a fundamental routing change was rejected by both the operational community and the routing folks. No, IPv6 doesn't fix (or even change) the routing of the system, and that problem will fester until it becomes important enough to

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> What we need is an interdomain routing system that can either (a) > drastically reduce the incremental cost of additional prefixes in the DFZ, > or (b) move the exist cost out of the DFZ to the people who want to > multihome. Both probably mean ditching BGP4 and moving to some sort of > int

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Thus spake "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The RIRs have been trying pretty hard to make IPv6 allocations be one prefix per ISP, with truly large edge networks being treated as functionally equivalent to an ISP (PI addressing without admitting it is being done). Make the bald assertion that

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

- Original Message - From: "Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Per Heldal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 15:12 Subject: Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) That is an assumption that I haven't found it necessary to make. I

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Wasn't Noel Chiappa Nimrods "father" ? He explained his philosophy to me in an interview a decade ago as well as why he believed that BGP was not sustainable. yet here we are still chugging along meanwhile back to your operational flows ;-) ==

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:24:08 -0700 Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Tony et al.; This is beginning to sound like an IETF or IRTF mail list, and, lo!, I get an email today from Leslie Daigle : A new mailing list has been created to provide a forum for general discussion of Internet ar

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:24 PM, Tony Li wrote: To not even *attempt* to avoid future all-systems changes is nothing short of negligent, IMHO. On Oct 17, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Randy Bush wrote: and that is what the other v6 ivory tower crew said a decade ago. which is why we have the disaster we ha

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:57:52 -0700 David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 01:45:40AM -0700, Tony Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is probably the most common misunderstanding of the end-to-end > > principle out there. Someone else can dig up the quote, but > > ba

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

we agree that at least initially every prefix allocated should belong to a different AS (eg, no AS gets more than one); the fly in that is whether there is an ISP somewhere that is so truly large that it needs two super-sized blocks. I don't know if such exists, but one hopes it is very m

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Daniel, If we're going to put the world thru the pain of change, it seems that we should do our best to ensure that it never, ever has to happen again. That's the goal here? To ensure we'll never have another protocol transition? I hope you realize what a flawed statement that is. We can't

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

At 04:51 PM 10/17/2005, Tony Li wrote: Fred, If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but th

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

>> There is a fundamental difference between a one-time reduction in the >> table and a fundamental dissipation of the forces that cause it to >> bloat in the first place. Simply reducing the table as a one-off >> only buys you linearly more time. Eliminating the drivers for bloat >> buys you te

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> works for me - I did say I'd like to change the routing protocol - > but I think the routing protocol can be changed asynchronously, and > will have to. and that is what the other v6 ivory tower crew said a decade ago. which is why we have the disaster we have now. randy

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

It doesn't look like were talking about the same thing. A. Address conservation and aggregation (IPv4 and IPv6) is very important to get the most out of what we've got. Read; limit the combined routing-table to a manageable size whatever that may be. B. There seems to be widespread fear that the

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

works for me - I did say I'd like to change the routing protocol - but I think the routing protocol can be changed asynchronously, and will have to. On Oct 17, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Tony Li wrote: Fred, If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On 10/17/05 4:51 PM, "Tony Li" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fred, > >> If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of >> magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally >> change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and >> yes, I would like to

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Fred, If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but that is a different assertion. Th

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

That is an assumption that I haven't found it necessary to make. I have concluded that there is no real debate about whether the Internet will have to change to something that gives us the ability to directly address (e.g. not behind a NAT, which imposes some "interesting" requirements at

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> --bill (checking citesear...) does that only yield rare papers :-) and citeseer does not have the paper, only a few cites to it randy

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

>> check out "The Landmark Hierarchy: A New Hierarchy for Routing in Very >> Large Networks"; Paul Tsuchiya; 1989. > great stuff... i have a hardcopy. is it online yet? dunno if i would say great. but certainly good. randy

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

mon, 17,.10.2005 kl. 11.29 -0700, Fred Baker: > OK. What you just described is akin to an enterprise network with a > default route. It's also akin to the way DNS works. No default, just one or more *potential* routes. Your input is appreciated, and yes I'm very much aware that many people who

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:03:45AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote: > > > Imagine a situation with no access to any means of direct communication > > (phone etc). You've got a message to deliver to some person, and have no > > idea where to find that person. Chances are there's a group of people > > near

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> Imagine a situation with no access to any means of direct communication > (phone etc). You've got a message to deliver to some person, and have no > idea where to find that person. Chances are there's a group of people > nearby you can ask. They may know how to find the one you're looking > for.

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 19.16 +0200, skrev Peter Dambier: > That reminds me of anycasting or routing issues. > > Hackers did use this technique to make use of ip addresses not > really allocated. There would be no need for IPv6 if this was > more widespread. > > How about claiming to be f.root-serv

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 15.47 +, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Per Heldal wrote: > > > Well, let's try to turn the problem on its head and see if thats > > clearer; Imagine an internet where only your closest neighbors know you > > exist. The rest of the internet knows nothing

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

OK. What you just described is akin to an enterprise network with a default route. It's also akin to the way DNS works. The big question becomes not only "who knows what I need to know", but "how do I know that they actually know it?". For example, let's postulate that the concept is that

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I'm not sure I agree that the end state is 100% multihoming. I can > > certainly agree that more multihoming is coming. Many more people are > > pushing for multihoming today than in previous years, apparently telco > > instability (financial not t

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

That reminds me of anycasting or routing issues. Hackers did use this technique to make use of ip addresses not really allocated. There would be no need for IPv6 if this was more widespread. How about claiming to be f.root-servers.net and setting up our own root :) Regards, Peter and Karin Da

Re: IPv6 news

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Michael! On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Here, the suggestion is that netblocks should > be allocated to cities, not to providers. Within > a city, providers would get a subset of the city > address block to meet their local infra

The exhaustion of IPv4 address space

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 well, if the existing discussion is not enough, cisco has an interesting article out...see /. for more information. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_8-3/ipv4.html wearing my flame suite :-) regards, /virendra -B

Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote: > CIDR also changed allocation policies and created the notions of PA and PI > space. Hm. I guess I never thought of them as being causally related. And I remember the whole "portable/non-portable" issue as predating CIDR... I (perhaps mistak

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

Paul, This is completely orthogonal to a real identifier/locator split, which would divide what we know of as the 'address' into two separate spaces, one which says "where" the node is, topologically, and one which says "who" the node is. Hmm, no idea whether it's a good idea or not, bu

Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)

...the necessary evil called CIDR. evil because it locked customers into their providers, entrenched the existing large providers against future providers, and made it hard or impossible for the average endusing company to multihome. Uh, perhaps I'm being dense, but how does moving masking o

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 07.25 -0700, skrev Fred Baker: > is that anything like using, in Cisco terms, a "fast-switching cache" > vs a "FIB"? I'll bite as I wrote the paragraph you're quoting; Actually, hanging on to the old concepts may be more confusing than trying to look at it in completely n

Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Paul Vixie wrote: > ...the necessary evil called CIDR. evil because it locked customers > into their providers, entrenched the existing large providers > against future providers, and made it hard or impossible for the > average endusing company to mu

Re: IPv6 news

On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 01:45:40AM -0700, Tony Li wrote: > > > > >Doesn't NAT, or more specifically the most commonly used, NAPT, create > >hard state within the network, which then makes it violate the > >end-to-end argument ? Also, because it has to understand transport and > >application layer

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

is that anything like using, in Cisco terms, a "fast-switching cache" vs a "FIB"? On Oct 17, 2005, at 6:47 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: Well, let's try to turn the problem on its head and see if thats clearer; Imagine an internet where only your closest neighbors know you exist. The rest

Re: IPv6 news

> so, if we had a free hand and ignored the dogmas, what would we > change about the v6 architecture to make it really deployable > and scalable and have compatibility with and a transition path > from v4 without massive kludging, complexity, and long term > cost? Isn't that GENI already out of t

Re: IPv6 news

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 14.22 +0200, skrev Jeroen Massar: > On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 01:07 +1300, Simon Lyall wrote: > > > My son tells me that is what I want so I setup a payment of $5 per month > > to him. In 10 minutes from start to finish my house's /54 is "multi-homed", > > whatever that means. >

Re: IPv6 news

> > I think we need a researcher to sit down and > > figure out exactly what this would look like > > in a sample city and a sample national provider. > especially: > http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt > > will be quite of your liking. Not at all. This proposal is all about al

Re: IPv6 news

> > There are 437 cities of 1 million or more population. There are > > roughly 5,000 cities of over 100,000 population. And there are > > 3,047,000 named communities in the world. > > > > Seems to me that the number of routes in the global routing > > table should logically be closer to 5,000 t

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Per Heldal wrote: Well, let's try to turn the problem on its head and see if thats clearer; Imagine an internet where only your closest neighbors know you exist. The rest of the internet knows nothing about you, except there are mechanisms that let them "track you down" whe

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 12.55 +, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: [snip] > > MPLS on its own won't solve anything. Although MPLS has its uses, > > it smells too much like another desperate attempt from the telco-heads > > in the ITU crowd to make a packet-switched network look and behave like > > a circ

Re: IPv6 news

> Many people pick this up and twist it into ~the network has to be > application agnostic~ and then use this against NATs or firewalls, > which is simply a misuse of the principle. Personally, I think that NAT's interference with the communication between hosts is similar to the way in which e

Re: IPv6 news

> Is VJ compression considered a violation of the "end-to-end" principle? VJ compression happens in the middle of the network, between two routers/gateways. End-to-end refers to the hosts, i.e. the computers which "host" the end users' applications. Of course, in the old days, many of these "hos

Re: IPv6 news

On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 01:07 +1300, Simon Lyall wrote: > My son tells me that is what I want so I setup a payment of $5 per month > to him. In 10 minutes from start to finish my house's /54 is "multi-homed", > whatever that means. You cover the payment part, partially. But now the fun parts: - wh

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 11:39 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Another alternative is to force-align allocation and topology in some > > way /other/ than by "Providers" (geographical allocation in whatever > > hierarchy, IX allocation, whatever), such that networks were easily > > aggregatable.

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I agree that the end state is *NOT* 100% multihoming. It is > too complex for most people and there is no business > justification for it. But an awful lot of business customers > will be able to justify multihoming. That is part and parcel > of the "

Re: IPv6 daydreams

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 04:43 -0700, David Barak wrote: > What I'm unhappy > about is the exceedingly sparse allocation policies > which mean that any enduser allocation represents a > ridiculously large number of possible hosts. See the HD ration + proposals about sizing it down to a /56 as mentio

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 12:08:38PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 28 lines which said: > There are 437 cities of 1 million or more population. There are > roughly 5,000 cities of over 100,000 population. And there are > 3,047,000 named communities in the world.

Re: IPv6 news

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another alternative is to force-align allocation and topology in some way /other/ than by "Providers" (geographical allocation in whatever hierarchy, IX allocation, whatever), such that networks were easily aggregatable. Lots of objections though (the "providers and ge

Re: IPv6 daydreams

--- Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why have people, who are unhappy about /64s for > IPv6, been happy enough > to accept 48 bit addresses on their LANs for at > least 15 years? Why > aren't people complaining today about the overheads > of 48 bit MAC > addresses on their 1 or 10Gbps po

Re: IPv6 news

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that the end state is *NOT* 100% multihoming. It is too complex for most people and there is no business justification for it. But an awful lot of business customers will be able to justify multihoming. That is part and parcel of the "miss

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote: This is completely orthogonal to a real identifier/locator split, which would divide what we know of as the 'address' into two separate spaces, one which says "where" the node is, topologically, and one which says "who" the node is. Hmm, no idea whether i

Re: IPv6 news

> They've been asking for that as well I think. I certainly don't want to > have 1M+ routes for JUST the Internet to worry about anytime soon, I'd > hate to see over 300k for real Internet routes anytime soon :( Much of > today's hardware doesn't seem so happy around that number :( Operators and

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Per Heldal wrote: man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 07.17 +0200, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: Both MPLS and any tunneled VPN over IP means the core won't have to know about all those prefixes (think aggregation of addresses regionally in the IP case and outer label in the MPLS case). Ho

Re: IPv6 news

Just my 5 cents to the topic: Don't you all think that IPv6 would not be so neccessary for the very long time yet, if the IPv4 allocation scheme would be done right from the very very beginning? If the allocation policies would be something like the ones for ASn's. I.e. when you ask for IP s

Re: IPv6 news

> Another alternative is to force-align allocation and topology in some > way /other/ than by "Providers" (geographical allocation in whatever > hierarchy, IX allocation, whatever), such that networks were easily > aggregatable. Lots of objections though (the "providers and geography > don't a

Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

man, 17,.10.2005 kl. 07.17 +0200, skrev Mikael Abrahamsson: > Both MPLS and any tunneled VPN over IP means the core won't have to know > about all those prefixes (think aggregation of addresses regionally in the > IP case and outer label in the MPLS case). Hope you don't imply NAT and private a

Re: IPv6 daydreams

Mohacsi Janos wrote: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote: From an end-user: I dont know what I should need an /64 for but it's barf, barf anyhow. My routing table is telling me I have got a /124 only: The tunnel (network) *::0 The end of the tunnel *::1 Me *::2 The tunnel broadcas

Re: IPv6 daydreams

- Original Message - From: "Peter Dambier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tony Li" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Daniel Roesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christoper L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Monday, Octo

Re: IPv6 news

> > there is no hope in having operators explain to ietf that the current path > > is fruitless? certainly they can be made to see the light, yes? > > you have not spent much time with the ivtf, have you? In case you have never heard of the IVTF, Randy eloquently summarizes it here: https://rip

Re: 6to4 gateways

> > This seems like a problem that could be solved in the > style of the CIDR report. Regular weekly reports of > v6 relays and locations as seen from various major ASes. >From my "tr" website I can see a few 6to4 gateways: http://tr.meta.net.nz/output/2005-10-17_22:41_192.88.99.1.png (beware,

Re: IPv6 daydreams

From an end-user: I dont know what I should need an /64 for but it's barf, barf anyhow. My routing table is telling me I have got a /124 only: The tunnel (network) *::0 The end of the tunnel *::1 Me *::2 The tunnel broadcast *::3 Right now I have the impression we are only enusers. Right now

Re: IPv6 daydreams

Mark Smith wrote: We didn't get 48 bits because we needed them (although convenience is a need, if it wasn't we'd still be hand winding our car engines to start them ). We got them because it made doing other things much easier, such as (near) guarantees of world wide unique NIC addresses, allow

Re: IPv6 news

Paul Jakma wrote: And 6to4 obviously won't fly for long after the 4 tank runs dry. Hopefully it won't need to at that point as it is only intended as a transitional step. I like the simplicity of 6to4 and the way it preserves end-to-end addresses. If only there was a way to adapt it's stat

Re: IPv6 daydreams

Hi Randy, On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:08:49 -1000 Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If we're going to do that, we may as well also start reclaiming > > those 48 bit MAC addresses that come with ethernet cards. After > > all, nobody would need anymore than say 12 to 13 bits to address > > t

Re: IPv6 daydreams

> If we're going to do that, we may as well also start reclaiming > those 48 bit MAC addresses that come with ethernet cards. After > all, nobody would need anymore than say 12 to 13 bits to address > their LANs. so you think that layer-2 lans scale well above 12-13 bits? which ones in particular

Re: IPv6 daydreams

Hi David, On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:49:25 -0700 (PDT) David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'd change the allocation approach: rather than give > every customer a /64, which represents an IPv4 > universe full of IPv4 universes, I'd think that any > customer can make do with a single IPv4

Re: IPv6 news

> RFC 3068 also has another problem -- not enough relays, or at least not > enough in logical locations. From my home in Texas, a traceroute shows the > topologically "closest" instance of 192.88.99.1 to be in France. Nice to > see that GBLX's "native" IPv6 network doesn't have any 6to4 rel

RE: Choosing new transit: software help?

> > A top AS and top prefix talkers would be really useful. > > Flowscan will do the top AS, out of the box. > It could be hacked to go further. And guess what we find elsewhere on that nifty set of pages referred to by Bill Manning? http://www.caida.org/tools/ --Michael Dillon

Re: Level 3's side of the story

On 16.10 16:04, Simon Leinen wrote: > > Kevin Loch writes: > > Does anyone have reachability data for c-root during this episode? > > The RIPE NCC "DNSMON" service has some: > > http://dnsmon.ripe.net/dns-servmon/server/plot?server=c.root-servers.net&type=drops&tstart=1128246543&tstop=112897225

Re: IPv6 daydreams

On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 02:52 +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote: > > Hopefully, that will reach a point where the operators show up and > > participate at IETF, rather than the IETF coming to NANOG. > > > > agreed. Full ack. Ops should really realize that