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

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:14:57 -0800

Kurtis,

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

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

Such as?

> My problem is not with the population numbers. My problem is
> that I am not convinced address useage follow population patterns.

It does not follow GPS coordinates either, especially when 70% of the
surface of the earth is oceans. Have any better idea? A scalable one, I
mean. We want to hear it.

> Even Tonys allocation would then be better.

Sure, with 12 bits more I can do a lot better too.

>> .. 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.

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

It does not matter to MHAP. It would matter to GFN but when reaching
this kind of numbers, MHAP would have been rolled out and GFN phased out
anyway.

> You still need two upstreams == money.
> Just because we increase the number of ASes available doesn't
> mean that we will get lower transit prices.

Transit is dirt cheap already. I have plenty of small customers that
don't even have a T1 that would pay $200 more per month to be
multihomed, because they are running their credit card over the
internet. 1 hour of downtime pays for it, a no-brainer.

>> I agree that 12k routes is nothing we have to care about, but
>> this is not the point. The point is that if we start this, it
>> will be impossible to stop.

> I disagree. We know how it works and we have learnt how to control
> it. But we need a solution that is quick.

I have one for you: IPv4.

Michel.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:02:08 +0100

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

Current useage?

I would ofcourse rather go for the new routing model and just go for 
swap space in the mean time.

> I have one for you: IPv4.

...and that is what people are doing. Ever thought why there is 350 
routes in the IPv6 DFZ and 120k in the IPv4 DFZ?

I say go for something we knows how it works and what the limitations 
are while we work out a solution with layers.

Best regards,

- kurtis -