- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Scott Huddle 02 Feb '96

02 Feb '96

> > It only gets really touchy if few of the backbones touch down in the area. > > > >Unfortunately, this is exactly the case in which geographic addressing doesn't > >work so well any more, and we have no way to mandate that backbones touch down. > > Name a backbone which doesn't come into the San Francisco Bay Area. Um, all of the rest of the world's providers. > This is the area I want to try the idea out in. In terms of physical > touchdowns, they are all in place. The only barrier is getting most > of the backbones to willingly participate in the experiment. And whats your business case that'll do this? > A very significant chunk of new domains and new ISPs are here, > in the 415/408/510 area code regions (and 707, which is next door > and could be included if we wanted...). So build it. -scott

3 3

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by sob＠academ.com 01 Feb '96

01 Feb '96

Well, John... I have received two of these emails. So, I disagree with you. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by jnc＠ginger.lcs.mit.edu 01 Feb '96

01 Feb '96

From: George Herbert <gherbert(a)crl.com> It only gets really touchy if few of the backbones touch down in the area. Unfortunately, this is exactly the case in which geographic addressing doesn't work so well any more, and we have no way to mandate that backbones touch down. Noel

2 1

New mailing list: tld-admin@ripe.net
by Geert Jan de Groot 01 Feb '96

01 Feb '96

As requested at the last RIPE meeting, I have set up a new mailing list for TLD administrators: tld-admin(a)ripe.net. This is a closed mailing list; per request of the WG, only people who are maintaining a TLD are allowed to subscribe. As we need to verify requestor's affiliation, please send subscription requests to tld-admin-request(a)ripe.net including the name of the TLD you are administering. Please keep in mind that we need to verify things by hand and therefore some time may lapse processing requests. The maillist is archived, but again only privately so if you need a copy of the archive, please ask tld-admin-request(a)ripe.net. I'd like the TLD-admins to consider if they feel it is a good idea that the parties listed in RFC1591 (IANA, APNIC, InterNIC and RIPE NCC) are also allowed to subscribe or if the list should be restricted to TLD admins only. Let's party! Geert Jan

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Sean Doran 01 Feb '96

01 Feb '96

| 1) Provider X can announce the aggregate outside of the area & thus | give free transit to the whole area; or | | 2) Provider X can announce just provider X's customers outside of the | area, thus defeating the gain from aggregation; or | | 3) Provider X can be paid by everyone else in the area to provide | transit to the entire area to where ever else Provider X connects to. Just to be vicious, I think I should mention option #4: Provider X can announce the aggregate outside of the area and drop packets bound for people in the area who do not pay Provider X for transiting packets to them. I think you will find that if a system were set up such that there were many touchdowns of this nature (announcing a single prefix), people would be screaming that they were at the mercies of the decisions about to whom in each local aggregate each long-distance carrier would be willing to deliver traffic. One could also view this as a way to push the problems of CIDRization out to the edges -- it would then be the end sites which would have to learn and be able to route towards the exceptions in the local aggregates, rather than the long-haul carriers. Sean.

2 1

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by huitema＠pax.inria.fr 31 Jan '96

31 Jan '96

At 2:41 PM 30/1/96, Andrew Partan wrote: >> The proper solution is for all these companies to form a consortium. The >> consortium would run the NAP and contract with multiple NSP's for >> service. In that case, the NSP's are not providing transit to >> non-customers because the consortium is the customer and every ISP who >> joins the consortium gets multihoming reliability outside the region. > >Ah - we may have something that works - we have someone (the >consortium) being paid (by these companies) to provide (or further >purchase) transit. My initial message may have been terse, but I was certainly not expecting the "deviant CIX" or "specialized NAP" or "Agregating CIDR Internet Detour" (ACID, (tm)) to provide world wide reachability for free. In fact, it is providing a service at a cost. The service is to provide reachability to smallish 192/27 single home or multihomed networks. It does so by aggregating several such networks into a larger, CIDR routable, 192/8 (or /10, or /15). The cost is indeed that the transit traffic goes through the ACID, consume bandwidth and other resources, and that these resources have to be payed for. In short, networks owners pay for not having to renumber; how much they are ready to pay depends on how expensive their renumbering will be. Paying can be done in many way, from the "consortium" which you suggest to some fees to a service company that operates the ACID. In fact, the major roadblock here is the intrisic monopoly -- at first sight, there can only be one ACID for a given aggregate. This may trigger all sorts of regulatory questions. Sharing of resource between consortium members or service customers may be done either the usual way (i.e. FIFO and random luck) or in a more organized way, e.g. using class based queuing. Christian Huitema

3 2

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by marthag＠MIT.EDU 31 Jan '96

31 Jan '96

> > In message <199601291642.QAA09648(a)diamond.xara.net>, "Alex.Bligh" writes: > > Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch(a)unix1.bart.nl> wrote: > > > > > No they don't. You can ask the RIPE NCC for special PI space to assign to > > > this customer. It seems they have a "chemical waste dump" to satisfy > > > this kind of requests from. > > > > Ah. That will be the "chemical waste dump" that Daniel K said > > he didn't care about whether it got routed or not (no offence > > Daniel - neither do I), and is all but unaggregatable so presumably > > Sprintlink et al. won't want to waste their CPUs routing it as well. > > What hope for a customer with those IP numbers? > > > > Alex Bligh > > Xara Networks > > > Alex, > > Here's my suggestion. > > If you put that multi-homed customer in a larger aggregate (have them > pick one of the providers and allocate from their address space) all > of the providers must then announce the more specific. Some providers > will block the longer prefix. The longer prefix will be preferred and > traffic will avoid going through those providers that block it. This > might cause longer or suboptimal routing for the longer prefix. > Providers everywhere will have either the shorter prefix or both, so > full connectivity would exist. > > If the multi-homing is sufficiently localized within the topology (for > example, multiple providers in the same region or country) there might > be a chance to draw an aggregation boundary around the whole thing and > block the longer prefix outside of that locality and avoid the > possibility of suboptimal routing due to long prefix filtering. > > Curtis > Except that if the shorter prefixed route goes down, half the world will not be able to see any route to site, which sort of defeats the purpose of being multi-homed. Martha Greenberg marthag(a)mit.edu

2 1

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Robert A. Rosenberg 31 Jan '96

31 Jan '96

At 5:48 1/30/96, Alex.Bligh wrote: >Thankyou for the first constructive workable suggestion had so far. However, >this has two problems. You're welcome. > >a) RIPE fidn't give me the first /19 in a shorted prefix block > ( its x.x.160.x and .192.x is used), but no matter, I'll renumber > if necessary :-( or persuade them to give me a /18 as well so I > can do the above (hopefully). My convert the /19 to an /18 was a way to get minimal extra announcements. Getting a new /19 and keeping the first 3 /21s for your own use and giving them the 4th, still adds only one EXTRA announcement (over the need to announce the [new] /19 itself). >b) The /21 advert may be inbound filtered by a.n.other, which will be > fine if it has an AS-Path through me (as the less specific route > will work the same way) but won't when that path goes through the > other provider with whom they are multi-homed, as the /21 will disappear > entirely (3rd parties, i.e. a.n.other's customers will see neither), > the /19 will be the only thing that is visible, and I'll just black > hole their packets. As a Multi-Home (as opposed to a Private) /21 it should (theoretically) be entitled to being added to the filter lists as valid - Getting this done is a political problem. You should not be black holing the packets since your receipt of them is VALID (since they are Multi-Homed as opposed to having walked with the block).

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Robert A. Rosenberg 31 Jan '96

31 Jan '96

At 11:39 1/30/96, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: >> At 6:09 1/29/96, Alex.Bligh wrote: > >> > Currently I have 2 choices as >> >far as I can make out, give them a bit of my /19, break up my >> >nice aggregate and ensure loads of extra announcements (and that >> >probably none of them get routed by anyone applying prefix based >> >filtering), or give them a new /19 all of their own (you've > >Suppose you have a customer that needs a /22 and they want to go >multi-homed. Suppose you give them that /22 out of your /19 or /16 you >got from the RIPE NCC. So they announce their /22 to you and to their >other provider. But you keep announcing your /19 or /16. So if anybody >were to filter the /22 announcement, your customer only suffers partial >loss of connectivity, since you are still announcing an aggregate of >their announcemnt (your original /19 or /16). > >Problem fixed. Anything else? ;-) Unless you announce both the /16 (or 19) AND the /22, they are not multi-homed but only single routed (with some fallback for those who see the /22 announcement). Anyone who gets the unfiltered /22 announcement will used the other provider (so long as that provider is up) while you get used only by those who get a filter routing (and as fallback when the other provider goes down).

1 0

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
by Robert A. Rosenberg 31 Jan '96

31 Jan '96

At 6:09 1/29/96, Alex.Bligh wrote: > Currently I have 2 choices as >far as I can make out, give them a bit of my /19, break up my >nice aggregate and ensure loads of extra announcements (and that >probably none of them get routed by anyone applying prefix based >filtering), or give them a new /19 all of their own (you've >said it, that's the minimum size allocation) which actually >solves their problem and mine, but this isn't an option >currently available because currently it's one window per local-IR. >So they have to go and become a local IR. If the high /21 of your /19 is not Allocated, you just assign it to them and add ONE announcement of the /21 to supersede with the current /19. If it is not free but is sparsely populated you can move the stuff out to free it up or go to RIPE to get your /19 turned into an /18 (ie: get the /19 right after your current /19 [RIPE did give you the first /19 in a shorter prefix block didn't they?]) in exchange for returning the /21 worth of space [giving you 3 extra /21s worth of space], and divide that 2nd /19 into a /20, and 2 /21s giving them the 2nd /21 (still doing the same 2 announcements as you would if allocated out of your current /19).

4 3