From mksmith at adhost.com Mon Nov 24 18:42:48 2008 From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:42:48 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Provider Woes Message-ID: Hello Everyone: I just wanted to point out that there is an interesting discussion going on over on the NANOG mailing list. Apparently, Verizon is refusing to route anything more specific than a /32. This has been confirmed by several different Verizon clients, but there has not been an official response on the list, so YMMV. This is not to bash Verizon (specifically) but to point out that there is a significant disconnect between the marketplace and the RIR's already developing. I'm doubly curious because there are several Verizon employees amongst the folks we voted to represent us at ARIN, et. Al. Does this mean that ARIN (i.e. We) are creating policies that will never gain traction in the market or is Verizon off their nut? To Verizon's credit, at least they are routing IPv6 actively, unlike so many other "Tier 1" providers. Regards, Mike From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Nov 25 05:57:45 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:57:45 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Provider Woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > This is not to bash Verizon (specifically) but to point out > that there is a significant disconnect between the > marketplace and the RIR's already developing. This is nothing new. It is something that Verizon customers should take up with their account managers, or switch to a Verizon competitor who doesn't have silly rules. > is Verizon off their nut? Exactly. Verizon is a big complex (read confusing) company which means that the right hands rarely know or care what the left hands are doing. ARIN can't do anything about this directly. Remember, the /32 prefix is supposed to go to the operator of a single network. It may be that the Verizon customer actually operates multiple networks and should therefore have multiple /32s. Or maybe it's just one of those startup hiccups caused by the fact that nobody really knows how to do IPv6 Internet routing yet, because nobody has much experience with it. There are certainly a few people with some experience who have strong opinions, but a consensus has yet to form. I suggest that the whole transit-free tier 1 national network provider model of IPv4 may not be the best one to follow for IPv6. It may make more sense to put services like Google at the core of the network, i.e. tier 1, rather than national networks. --Michael Dillon From rmoseley at softlayer.com Tue Nov 25 09:41:04 2008 From: rmoseley at softlayer.com (Ric Moseley) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:41:04 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Provider Woes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I run several datacenters under a single ASN but with discreet IPv4 space. When I originally went to ARIN for IPv6 space, they allocated me a /32. I went to announce smaller /36 blocks out of that /32, and discovered that one of my backbone providers (NTT) would not accept anything smaller than a /32. As a result, I went back to ARIN and told them this. They basically said I would have to work it out with NTT. After going back and forth with NTT and pointing ARIN's rules out several times, they changed their policy and implemented a fix to the routers we peer with to allow down to a /36. This took over 4 months and they still have not rolled it out across their entire backbone (from what I understand). I am not bagging on NTT as they ultimately came through for me; however, my point is that there needs to be some give and take on both sides for IPv6 to be successful. Thanks. Ric Moseley VP of Engineering rmoseley at softlayer.com Softlayer Technologies, Inc. www.softlayer.com 214-442-0555 direct 972-989-7813 cell -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:58 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Provider Woes > This is not to bash Verizon (specifically) but to point out > that there is a significant disconnect between the > marketplace and the RIR's already developing. This is nothing new. It is something that Verizon customers should take up with their account managers, or switch to a Verizon competitor who doesn't have silly rules. > is Verizon off their nut? Exactly. Verizon is a big complex (read confusing) company which means that the right hands rarely know or care what the left hands are doing. ARIN can't do anything about this directly. Remember, the /32 prefix is supposed to go to the operator of a single network. It may be that the Verizon customer actually operates multiple networks and should therefore have multiple /32s. Or maybe it's just one of those startup hiccups caused by the fact that nobody really knows how to do IPv6 Internet routing yet, because nobody has much experience with it. There are certainly a few people with some experience who have strong opinions, but a consensus has yet to form. I suggest that the whole transit-free tier 1 national network provider model of IPv4 may not be the best one to follow for IPv6. It may make more sense to put services like Google at the core of the network, i.e. tier 1, rather than national networks. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Nov 25 10:15:56 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:15:56 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Provider Woes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > I run several datacenters under a single ASN but with > discreet IPv4 space. If these are discreet data centers, in other words, you don't have your own network infrastructure connecting them, then doesn't that mean that each data center is a discreet network which deserves to receive its own ASN and /32? I'm curious how ARIN views this. --Michael Dillon From vixie at isc.org Tue Nov 25 13:29:25 2008 From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:29:25 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Provider Woes In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:15:56 GMT." References: Message-ID: <64171.1227637765@nsa.vix.com> > > I run several datacenters under a single ASN but with discreet IPv4 > > space. > > If these are discreet data centers, in other words, you don't have your > own network infrastructure connecting them, then doesn't that mean that > each data center is a discreet network which deserves to receive its own > ASN and /32? > > I'm curious how ARIN views this. i think that ARIN ("who is ARIN? you are!") ought to be and will be concerned about re-creating what we call "the swamp" through this kind of allocation, and that if IPv6 effectively makes /32 the smallest useful allocation then all we've done is avoid choking to death due to address space shortage in order that we can choke to death just as certainly on global routing table churn and size. if the internet community is going to abandon CIDR and go back to non-hierarchical routing, it should be done explicitly -- eyes wide open, and not incrementally -- in denial -- through the back door. From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Nov 25 14:51:38 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:51:38 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Provider Woes In-Reply-To: <64171.1227637765@nsa.vix.com> Message-ID: > > If these are discreet data centers, in other words, you don't have > > your own network infrastructure connecting them, then doesn't that > > mean that each data center is a discreet network which deserves to > > receive its own ASN and /32? > if the internet community is going to abandon CIDR and go > back to non-hierarchical routing, it should be done > explicitly -- eyes wide open, and not incrementally -- in > denial -- through the back door. What if I had said "receives its own ASN and /48"? Does that fully address your objection about non-hierarchical routing? --Michael Dillon From vixie at isc.org Tue Nov 25 15:16:30 2008 From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:16:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Provider Woes In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:51:38 GMT." References: Message-ID: <76699.1227644190@nsa.vix.com> > > if the internet community is going to abandon CIDR and go > > back to non-hierarchical routing, it should be done > > explicitly -- eyes wide open, and not incrementally -- in > > denial -- through the back door. > > What if I had said "receives its own ASN and /48"? Does that fully > address your objection about non-hierarchical routing? no, and that's a good point. in terms of address space conservation, 1/4294967296 and 1/281474976710656 are indistinguishable fractions of the total when allocated no matter what the purpose. however, both take 1 slot in the global routing swamp, and the thought implicit in the current allocation policy was that a /48 was 64K LANs which is basically one well-VLAN'd campus whereas a /32 is 4B LANs which is basically 64K campuses each having 64K LANs. the cost:benefit to the other denizens of the global routing swamp is much better for a dense /32 than for a dense /48 or a sparse /32. (where "dense" probably means 100 out of 64K possible suballocations.) perhaps a /32 for a each datacenter can make sense in the current allocation policy framework if each is multihomed and each is multitenant. but if these are single homed or single enterprise, i think the community's consensus will be something like "please build yourself a backbone, or use provider-assigned (hierarchical) space." note that f-root has an IPv6 /48 out of which we use one address. this is tolerable to the community only because the community needs DNS root service and because it's one routing table slot whether it's a /48 or a /128. this also means that folks who filter on a /32 boundary won't see f-root in IPv6. tony li told us at ARIN XX that until there was market pressure around routing table slots, our allocation policies were going to be skewed, and this sure sounds to me like what i thought he meant. From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Nov 25 17:45:22 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:45:22 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] IPv6 Provider Woes In-Reply-To: <76699.1227644190@nsa.vix.com> Message-ID: > perhaps a /32 for a each datacenter can > make sense in the current allocation policy framework if each > is multihomed and each is multitenant. That was my assumption. However I believe that current policy only considers the multihoming, not multi-tenancy. And cloud computing kind of blurs the edges of multi-tenancy. > but if these are > single homed or single enterprise, i think the community's > consensus will be something like "please build yourself a > backbone, or use provider-assigned (hierarchical) space." Agreed. The reason I raised this issue is because it should be straightforward for two companies to each build a single data center and each get an ASN and IP allocation from ARIN. Then if one company buys the other, you have the scenario from the beginning of the discussion where one company has two or more data centres that have no network connectivity between them. I expect to see more of this situation in the next few years as the cloud computing concept leads to new data centres. And I also wonder if the transition to IPv6 will lead to new peering architectures where data centres end up at the top tier (network core) as valuable peering partners. One driver for this is that I expect network operators to take a tough look at what is core business and in at least some cases, data centers will be considered non-core, but even after outsourcing they will want low-latency connectivity to them. --Michael Dillon