RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Discussion about RIPE-261
Gert,
Gert Doering wrote: - The /23 allocations ICANN -> RIRs are bad, because they lead to address space fragmentation, and the blocks are too small to do useful allocation towards the LIRs. Something NEEDS to be changed here.
Agree.
So my personal recommendation would be: - change the /23 allocation boundary ICANN -> RIR to something more useful, like a /12 or so (a /12 means "512 of them are available, so we're not yet burning bridges - but a /8 would work as well. A /16 is already somewhat tight).
I don't find this very flexible. If you look at what happened with LACNIC, countries from ARIN were transferred to LACNIC. I expect that when AFRINIC is activated, countries from both RIPE and ARIN will be transferred to AFRINIC. I agree with this goal:
- As a technical reason: people want to be able to filter IPv6 prefixes by region, like "I only have one uplink that provides me with US connectivity, so there's no need to carry any US prefixes in my routing table, I just point a summary down that line".
If you want to do this, you might as well do it right in the first place. IMHO, delegating space to a RIR as a single block is a mistake. It would be much more flexible to assign space to countries, and simply say that RIRs have stewardship of the space assigned to countries belonging to them. If a country changes RIRs like we have seen for LACNIC and like we will likely see for AFRINIC, no change in addresses and the geographical summary is preserved. Below is an example interpolated from the work we have done on geographic assignments: http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/geov6.txt Quick notes: - We are presently talking about PA space; the document mentioned above refers to PI space. However the geographic cutoff collapsed to the country level would not change. - I chose to assign a /8 to the entire world, which can be discussed. This means that after we colonize 255 other planets we have a problem :-) can someone help me with that warp drive please? - What could also be discussed are the details of how this was generated, but I would like to get the _concept_ across then we can talk about the details. Zone Population %G Pop. IANA ---------------- ---------- ------- -------------- China 1284971000 20.91% 2346:0000::/11 Continental Asia 673454413 10.96% 2346:2000::/11 India 1025096000 16.68% 2346:4000::/12 Northern Africa 565854163 9.21% 2346:5000::/12 Asian Islands 488468000 7.95% 2346:6000::/12 Western Europe 423412058 6.89% 2346:7000::/12 North America 318243350 5.18% 2346:8000::/12 South America 350724557 5.71% 2346:9000::/13 Eastern Europe 307858000 5.01% 2346:9800::/13 Middle East 258577000 4.21% 2346:A000::/13 Southern Africa 242566332 3.95% 2346:A800::/13 Central America 175719760 2.86% 2346:B000::/14 Oceania 30568053 0.50% 2346:B400::/16 ---------------- ---------- ------- -------------- World 6145512686 100.00% 2346:0000::/8 Example of one zone: Country Population %Z Pop. %G Pop. IANA ------------------- ---------- ------- ------- -------------- United States 285926000 89.85% 4.65% 2346:8000::/13 Canada 1015000 9.75% 0.50% 2346:8800::/17 Hawaii 1224398 0.38% 0.02% 2346:8880::/21 Bermuda 60000 0.02% 0.00% 2346:8888::/24 Greenland 12483 0.00% 0.00% 2346:8889::/24 -------------------- ---------- ------- ------- -------------- Zone: North America 318243350 100.00% 5.18% 2346:8000::/12 Implementing such a system would change the way large(global) LIRs request space from RIRs. As of today, they would typically request one /32 per RIR. For people the size of Sprint, they would then have to request a /32 per country they service and assign space to customers from the correct prefix. What this means to large LIRs is a large initial number of prefixes, but it's not fundamentally worse than an always-growing number of /32s when IPv6 finally takes off IMHO. For smaller LIRs that service only one country, there would be no change. There would be some impact on the GRT as there would be a "SPRINT-USA" block, an "ATT-USA" block, a "SPRINT-GERMANY" block, an "ATT-GERMANY" block, etc. In other words, what we are looking at is one /32 prefix per country per large LIR, opposed to as many /32s a large LIR would need in the long run anyway. Comments welcome.
- inside that RIR allocation, use the binary chop algorithm described in RIPE-261 for the RIR->LIR distribution.
I'm not familiar with this; would that be something like RFC3531? Michel.
Hi Michel, Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> writes: [...]
If you want to do this, you might as well do it right in the first place. IMHO, delegating space to a RIR as a single block is a mistake. It would be much more flexible to assign space to countries, and simply say that RIRs have stewardship of the space assigned to countries belonging to them. If a country changes RIRs like we have seen for LACNIC and like we will likely see for AFRINIC, no change in addresses and the geographical summary is preserved.
How would such a system cope with networks crossing international boundaries? Also, if an enterprise LIR moved from country A to country B, would they have to renumber? Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
In other words, what we are looking at is one /32 prefix per country per large LIR, opposed to as many /32s a large LIR would need in the long run anyway.
Actually what you are looking at is one /32 per LIR + one /32 per country per large LIR. Without tweaking routing, a more efficient way would be to use the fact that IPv6 blocks are a lot larger than IPv4 blocks and simply give one /32 to every LIR. I guess this would only work with RIPE who have the concepts of LIRs but anyway. - kurtis -
--On Monday, May 26, 2003 08:50:08 +0200 Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
Without tweaking routing, a more efficient way would be to use the fact that IPv6 blocks are a lot larger than IPv4 blocks and simply give one /32 to every LIR. I guess this would only work with RIPE who have the concepts of LIRs but anyway.
Yes, it would be very convenient. I might want to advocate extending it to be "one /32 per 16-bit AS" and have the routing table grow to a whopping 2^16 routes. That must be painful. Surely. 32-bit AS numbers is something I see taken care of by Moore, if we do not find a new routing model, which of course is the elegant way, but for now, brute force does it. -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
Hi, On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:41:30AM +0200, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Yes, it would be very convenient. I might want to advocate extending it to be "one /32 per 16-bit AS" and have the routing table grow to a whopping 2^16 routes. That must be painful. Surely.
And it doesn't *solve* the policy issue - it will just move it to "who is entitled to get a 16-bit AS number". So I'd be very careful about this "solution". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54837 (54495) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Mon, 26 May 2003, Gert Doering wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:41:30AM +0200, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Yes, it would be very convenient. I might want to advocate extending it to be "one /32 per 16-bit AS" and have the routing table grow to a whopping 2^16 routes. That must be painful. Surely.
And it doesn't *solve* the policy issue - it will just move it to "who is entitled to get a 16-bit AS number".
So I'd be very careful about this "solution".
Totally agree -- in the sense, that IMHO, the registries need to start putting better policies in place to prevent AS number starvation. On the other hand, if we have good policies for ASN's, we could get easy address allocation too with little overheard and additional paperwork.. If we need to go for 32bit ASN's, I consider it a very bad policy failure.. :-( -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
--On Monday, May 26, 2003 15:44:27 +0300 Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2003, Gert Doering wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 11:41:30AM +0200, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Yes, it would be very convenient. I might want to advocate extending it to be "one /32 per 16-bit AS" and have the routing table grow to a whopping 2^16 routes. That must be painful. Surely.
And it doesn't *solve* the policy issue - it will just move it to "who is entitled to get a 16-bit AS number".
So I'd be very careful about this "solution".
The only thing that speaks for it, and that is a heavy reason, imho, is that it would get a sizable chunk of native v6 address space deployed, and people could actually use v6, instead of lying to their RIR as they have to do now. Most of the organisations also would manage nicely on only one assignment (ie. one route per AS) unless they were insanely large. It would be a nice "fresh start" of the routing table, but with only known components. It might be that this is enough to make the real issues surface, those we only find by trying..
Totally agree -- in the sense, that IMHO, the registries need to start putting better policies in place to prevent AS number starvation.
On the other hand, if we have good policies for ASN's, we could get easy address allocation too with little overheard and additional paperwork..
Yup.
If we need to go for 32bit ASN's, I consider it a very bad policy failure.. :-(
Agree. But people seem to vividly state that they are inevitable as soon as I open my mouth about handing out /32 slices to all AS numbers. With 15500 or so ASen visible now, I'd be hard pressed to call them a scarce resource in the short term... -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
On Mon, 26 May 2003, Pekka Savola wrote:
Totally agree -- inthe sense, that IMHO, the registries need to start putting better policies in place to prevent AS number starvation.
On the other hand, if we have good policies for ASN's, we could get easy address allocation too with little overheard and additional paperwork..
If we need to go for 32bit ASN's, I consider it a very bad policy failure.. :-(
I tried to oppose 32 bit ASN in the IETF BGP group. I was ignored by those that felt 32 bit ASNs will happen no matter what. I felt the reason we need 32 bit ASN is only due to LIR laziness in not reclaiming defunct ASNs. I reclaim 10-15 ASNs per year and it is work - many hours of work to reclaim each ASN. The easier path is to just let the defunct ASN or single homed ASN to just continue and ignore it and just ask for more ASNs. That appears to be what the IETF has decided.
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
-Hank
Without tweaking routing, a more efficient way would be to use the fact that IPv6 blocks are a lot larger than IPv4 blocks and simply give one /32 to every LIR. I guess this would only work with RIPE who have the concepts of LIRs but anyway.
Yes, it would be very convenient. I might want to advocate extending it to be "one /32 per 16-bit AS" and have the routing table grow to a whopping 2^16 routes. That must be painful. Surely.
This has been proposed a number of times...
32-bit AS numbers is something I see taken care of by Moore, if we do not find a new routing model, which of course is the elegant way, but for now, brute force does it.
...but the counter argument is that 32-bits are just around the corner. The problem here is that they should be, but if they where we still are looking at at least 3-5 years of deployment. - kurtis -
participants (7)
-
Gert Doering
-
Hank Nussbacher
-
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
-
leo vegoda
-
Michel Py
-
Måns Nilsson
-
Pekka Savola