Subject: RE: comments on draft-py-multi6-gapi-00.txt

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 19:07:04 -0800

Kurtis,

> Kurt Erik Lindqvist
> I have gone through the above draft again and started
> thinking. Although the draft as such does not give any
> solution in itself to mulithoming it is part of other
> solutions. I am not convinced it scales though.

This is irrelevant to the draft, as the scalability comes from the
aggregation model and not from the addressing allocation plan. Out of
the two aggregation schemes that currently use GAPI (MHAP and
isp-int-aggr"GFN"), we know that the aggregation provided by GFN does
not scale that good, but MHAP does (MHAP is a dual-space system and the
GAPI address is the identifier).

> Mainly my concerns are that this is based on statistics. The draft
> says that the options that are available to base this on is geography
> or population.

It's mostly population. The geography part (such as promoting Hawaii to
the status of "country") is baseline or optimization only.

> I would add Geopolicy and economics.

Certainly not, because this will get us into politics. Maybe China will
be capitalist tomorrow, who knows. When I was a young man, the enemy was
the Soviet Union and people in Berlin were being shot trying to jump the
wall. Go to Berlin now, it's fortunate that the remains of the wall are
documented because otherwise you would not find them. Gee, maybe in 3
years the largest concentration of multihomed oil companies will be in
Iraq and the Russians will make their space shuttle fly after they are
done inspecting the heat shield. Who are we to predict the future?

In Tony Hain's drafts, a square foot in Kabul gets the same number of
IPv6 addresses than a square foot in Palo Alto; we do the same except
that we do it for people. No politics. If you're not happy with the
numbers, talk to the United Nations Statistics division.

> If we take Sweden or Switzerland as examples, these are countries
> with relatively small populations but with a high number of large
> multinationals per capita. Multinationals will have a higher burn
> rate of addresses, especially in multihoming than "ordinary" users
> will. With the GAPI addresses, instead large countries that might
> have a lower order of multihoming is gaining advantage.

This is true, but we addressed it by having slack at three different
levels. In the absolute, it does not make a difference anyway, because
our base allocation gives an address for four people, and multinationals
are typically way larger than 4 people.

> You can also argue that address consumption will most likely NOT
> follow geographic boundaries. If I take Stockholm, Ericsson for
> example have their HQ in a relatively unpopulated area. Also the
> "swedish silicon valley" have a high number of multinationals that
> will want to mulithome, but relatively small population.

I don't see what the problem is. The slack for Sweden is 93.75%,
allocating a /32 for the Swedish silicon valley is perfectly in line
with the draft, after you guys have cornered a little piece of the 128k
multihomed sites already allocated to Stockholm that is.
And if it's still not enough, the Western Europe zone has a 45.59% slack
to allocate from.

> The more I think on this, the more I think that any model that tries
> to align address usage / availability to Geopolitics, economics,
> address usage, etc - will not scale.

Again, there is no relation. The scalability is provided by the
aggregation mechanism, not by the allocation plan.

Michel.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:15:45 +0100

> GAPI address is the identifier).

Well, that is from the point of scaling in number of routes. I am not 
sure the model as such will work.

> the status of "country") is baseline or optimization only.

Yes, but there are other alternatives to base this on as well.

> done inspecting the heat shield. Who are we to predict the future?

And this is the problem. The current model to me does not allocate 
addresses to where they are used.

> numbers, talk to the United Nations Statistics division.

Even Tonys allocation would then be better. My problem is not with the 
population numbers. My problem is that I am not convinced address 
useage follow population patterns.

> are typically way larger than 4 people.

True, but you are then more or less starting to punch holes in the 
aggregates.

- kurtis -