On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 12:02 +0200, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On man, september 19, 2011 11:38, Jasper Jans wrote: <snip>
I have been wondering - since BGP is all about reachability as a goal and not so much optimal routing/best path/etc. is the easy solution for growth in the DFZ not overly simple? The way I see it you will end up with three sets of routes that you will need to carry on your routers:
1) Own customer routes - these can be any prefix length between /48 and /64 2) Other LIRs aggregates in same RIR region - these are /32 and bigger 3) Supernets for other RIR regions - these are /12 or larger
... geo adressing? :-)
anyway, about #3, how should be it implemented in practice?
Good question.
Who should carry others route in DFZ between regions, and who should distribute it to others?
Anyone who so pleases.
Should RIPE/ARIN/APNIC etc "pay" someone to make region<>region communication possible?
Oh dear TCAMs, please no.
and yeah, the idea is sound and I agree but can't really see an easy way to implement it today...
It sounds suspiciously like ITU for me (ie, bad). It imposes previously non-existent architectural limits and constraints on Internet routing (given there is some form of routing police, of course :-)): How would you multi-home across region boundaries? What will happen with other inter-region connectivity? All AS:es who peer over a region-boundary, they will have to stop? (Who can enforce that?) Or will they have to get space from each regions RIR and do prefix translation in their routers? (This will amplify space usage by number of regions, roughly, for operators with presence in more than one region.) Jasper, how did you conclude that RIR region boundaries is a good place to draw the line in the sand by the way? Why, for example, didn't you suggest nation state borders? (Ie, Denmark could have 0045::, Sweden 0046:: and so on) Cheers, Martin