mailing list archives
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
From: "Edward B. DREGER" <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:32:34 +0000 (GMT)
JAK> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:51:16 -0800 (PST)
JAK> From: John A. Kilpatrick
JAK> Maybe I missed it, but is there something in your solution that keeps
JAK> dual-homed leaves from having to renumber when changing ISPs? In your
Note: I'm approaching this from a "something to do today" IPv4
standpoint that also works for IPv6. Subnets lengths are IPv4.
I suggested IP policies similar to current ones: longer than /24
requires renumbering no matter what, [/24,some_boundary] is a chunk from
provider space, and shorter than some_boundary may be PI.
Note that /24 is arbitrary; I use it because that is what's found in the
wild today. This could be changed. Likewise, some_boundary has
Others proposed region-specific IPs. I once believed strongly in that,
then had mixed feelings... and now believe we should perhaps look at
In a word, no, I'm not approaching PI space. It's attractive, but
requires bigger routing tables or source routing. IPv6 with /32
prefixes (conducieve to exact-match hardware) handles the former. SHIM6
resembles the latter.
Want to try SHIM6? Build an IPv4 analog today: Use multihop eBGP or
similar to advertise one's upstream routers, then expect the remote end
to loose source route the return traffic.
JAK> concept, is there some "ownership" of the address space on the part of the
JAK> customer? I know that being able to swing to a new provider (due one of a
JAK> hundred reasons, including Layer 8 manangement decisions) without having to
Put more directly, IP ranges should be separate from routing policy,
even for networks of only 10 hosts. I'll address this in a separate
thread. Folks, brush up on your procmail skills...
JAK> renumber or suffer significant downtime is one of the things that makes
JAK> dual-homing appealing.
PI space and multihoming are orthogonal. A network can have one without
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
davidc () brics com -*- jfconmaapaq () intc net -*- sam () everquick net
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.