[ppml] 2005-1 and/or Multi6

[Owen DeLong]

Actually, there are parts of swapmv4 in 192, 193, 194, and, arguably,
some of the old B addresses which often appear in deaggregated (subnet)
form.  2005-1 would not do this.  It would be very easy for providers to
render the v6 swamp and this policy moot simply by refusing to advertise
routes within the designated block.

My intent is to propose a policy that is slightly less evil than what will
happen without it.  I have no delusions that a swamp is a good thing.  I
do think that PI addressing is necessary as long as v6 does not solve the
real problem.

The real problem, however, is not apropos to ARIN.  In short, it is the need
to separate the interdomain routing tag from the end system identifiers.



Owen


--On Wednesday, April 13, 2005 15:55 -0700 Lea Roberts 
<lea.roberts at stanford.edu> wrote:

> Daniel -
>
> well, perhaps 'all PI users as "mud"' is a good characterization.
>
> what I was thinking of as I wrote SWAMPv6 is that even tho the PI prefixes
> would be allocated by ARIN out of a single block, they would still be
> individual routes.  They would consume a RIB slot and not be aggregatable.
> You could just as easily say that SWAMPv4 was all allocated out of 192/8,
> but it is still a large collection of /24 routes that need to be carried
> throughout the DFZ.  So, that's my definition of "swamp" - a collection of
> long-prefix, non-aggregatable routes.				/Lea
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:16AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
>> > > or would this policy just create SWAMPv6?
>> >
>> > This policy would create SWAMPv6. SWAMPv6 will be more difficult to
>> > clean than SWAMPv4, for two reasons:
>>
>> Can anyone please define "swamp"? What does the collection of PI
>> prefixes differ in compared to the collection of PA aggregate prefixes
>> other than probably prefix length?
>>
>> "Swamp" was the organisational chaos left from the early IPv4 phase.
>> I don't see how a /32 set aside by each RIR for /48 PI prefixes can be
>> called "swamp" unless you define all PI users as "mud". :-)
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>> --
>> CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
>>
>



-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050414/b4e1b722/attachment.sig>