Subject: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 12:58:36 +0200 (EET)

Hello,

I've sent a short draft (7 pages) to Internet-Drafts for publication.

I propose an automatic allocation of /48, /40 or /32 (based on how the 
community feels) of PI addresses if you have an AS number.

A 16-bit AS number in the range 1 - 2^15, that is.  This is just to enable
IPv6 multihoming temporarily, until another mechanism is devised, to those
end-sites that already do it today.  This is kind of a "stop those lame
excuses now, please" -solution.

Note: personally, I think ASN-PI like this is not a good idea, but it's at
least better than some others, like breaking aggregates or doing stuff
like that -- this is controlled, after a fashion.

Until publication, it's available at:

http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/draft-savola-multi6-asn-pi-00.txt

And the abstract is:

   In IPv6, the current IPv4 site multihoming practises have been
   operationally disabled, to prevent a creation of an unmanageable
   swamp of more specific routes.  Some argue that the lack of a
   comprehensive site multihoming solution is hindering the deployment
   of IPv6.  This memo presents a few proposals for end-sites with
   autonomous system (AS) number to be able to derive a provider
   independent block of addresses from the first half of the 16-bit AS-
   number space.  This could enable a temporary IPv6 site multihoming
   solution for those that already employ similar mechanisms in IPv4.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 16:17:47 -0800

Michael,

> Would it make sense to push Pekka's draft along the experimental
> track in the spirit of RFC 1797 (the 39/8 subnet experiment)?
> It may not be an optimal solution, but it would give the
> community some breathing room while better methods are developed.
>  I concur with Pekka that sunset provisions are important.

If a sunset is required, then requesting a "special" 6bone pTLA would be
the way to go. I don't see what that would buy though, and here's the
rationale:

The idea behind Pekka's draft is that deployment of IPv6 is being
hindered because organizations that currently have an ASN are waiting
for some kind of PI to deploy. Why are they waiting? Because they don't
want to renumber. Giving these guys a prefix that sunsets does not do
them any good.

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:02:33 -0800

Tim / Pekka,

>>> Tim Chown wrote:
>>> And presumably these are a bigger hit on the DFZ routing
>>> table size than multihomers?
 
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> I don't think so, it more a matter of creating the precedent
>> then real savings on the routing table size.

> OK, I beleive you, but would be interested in any stats in this area? 

Sure, but keep reading.

> Pekka Savola wrote:
> I'd like to hear a specific definition of this, so we could _have_
> stats. Do you mean announcing a more specific route from different
> origin AS than the aggregate?  Do you you want to restrict that to
> address blocks allocated by RIR's somehow, etc.?
> I've actually done some analysis on a portion of the routing table
> to look for multihoming; extracting this info, if defined, might
> not be a problem.

I don't think that the real number actually matters. Is it 10k? 20k?
30k? nobody cares because in 3 or 4 years if we have 30k routes to deal
with it would not be a problem for any decent router.

The problem is that we would have opened the gates of hell by giving
away PI to a certain category of users and that everyone else and their
dog will want one too and the issue is dealing with a billion routes in
10 years.

Michel.

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:13:08 -0800

> Michael Richardson wrote:
> The AS proposal certainly results in a much smaller DFZ than if
> we handed every holder of PI IPv4 space PI space in IPv6. 

Absolutely, the point I was making is not that it would be bigger, as I
do like the idea, but that it would likely not be possible to stick to
it: If we give PI to ASN holders, you can be sure that the lobbying of
swamp space holders to get the same thing is going to be a freight train
that nobody will be able to stop.

> I would very much like to have given them some kind of
> PI IPv6 space.

I have been finicky lately about the semantics of this: Some kind of PI
other than the one we have could be fine, but certainly not straight PI.

Michel.