[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Scott Leibrand]

George,

I think we all agree that enterprises need to be able to multihome, switch
ISPs, and traffic engineer.  But the devil is in the details, i.e. how.
It sounds like you represent a large network that would qualify for IPv4
PI space, and for whom PA space is unreasonable because of the renumbering
difficulty.  So I wanted to get your opinion on the point I've been trying
to introduce into the discussion: at what point along the spectrum from a
home user to a large multinational corporation does PI space become the
best (or only) option for effective multihoming?

I know a home user doesn't need PI space: an IPv6 prefix from each of his
ISPs (or his and his neighbors) would suffice.  But does a small business
with a single location need PI space to multihome?  What about about a
larger business with a hundred employees and a branch office or two?

As I've stated before, I really think we need to set up the policy such
that only the people for whom PI space is the only reasonable option will
go that route.  If we give PI space out to anyone with two ISPs, I'm
pretty sure we're cause a marked increase in routing table growth over
what we've seen with IPv4.

-Scott

On 02/01/06 at 4:07pm -0500, George Kuzmowycz <George.Kuzmowycz at aipso.com>...:

> >>> <Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com> 02/01/2006 4:59:05 AM >>>
> > It's
> > not that we (the customers) don't trust you, it's that in today's
> > regulatory/business environment we no longer are permitted to trust
> you.
> > If I don't have a solid plan for what to do quickly and painlessly
> to
> > switch ISP's, I lose my job or our customers or both. For better or
> for
> > worse, PI space and multi-homing are the answer du jour.
>
> Local multihoming based on geo-topological IPv6 addresses is
> also a workable solution to this issue. The main technical hurdle
> is that it requires use of IPv6 instead of IPv4. And the main
> policy hurdle is that it requires IANA and the RIRs to start
> allocated addresses out of a global block that is set aside for
> geo-topological addressing. Other than that, it can be implemented
> using today's technology unchanged.
> >>>
>
> I freely admit I'm not up to speed on this (and I recognize from
> subsequent discussion that it's not a consensus position). Can you point
> me to a starting point for reading?
>
> I also freely admit that I've got a ways to go in catching up with the
> IPv6 discussions. Part of the problem is that it seems to this newcomer
> like a bunch of people who have known each other forever and who staked
> out their positions a decade ago, and have been talking past each other
> ever since.
>
> Out here in the real world, real multi-homing and customer-level
> traffic engineering (or attempted traffic engineering) are genies that
> aren't going to go back in the bottle. You can deconstruct my last
> message all you want as to "needs" or "wants", but when the people who
> sign the contracts and spend the money say they "want" something,
> telling them that they don't "need" it doesn't sound like a good
> strategy.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>