[141960] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question about migrating to IPv6 with multiple upstreams.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jun 14 18:49:25 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <6BF40C70-0A67-439A-90DC-D427CF5CE541@dds.nl>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:40:15 -0700
To: Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 14, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Seth Mos wrote:
>=20
> Op 14 jun 2011, om 19:04 heeft Ray Soucy het volgende geschreven:
>=20
>> My guess is within the next year we'll see something pop up that does =
this.
>=20
> Ehm, It's already here, you searched google right?
>=20
> I finished it 4 months ago. And a number of commercial platforms =
already support it. Although Owen doesn't like it much.
>=20
> I really wish there was a more bomb proof "lite" version of the BGP =
protocol.
> - One that has proper authentication not based on a single MD5.
> - One that does not allow the client side to define the networks.
> - That will only support default routes, it's easier if it can not =
carry the world.
>=20
Bullet 1: You're in luck... In IPv6, you can run BGP/IPSEC.
Works today.
Bullet 2: Not sure how you'd do that, but, since the "client side" can't =
control
what the upstream side accepts, I'm not sure why that matters.
Bullet 3: You have the option of doing that in BGP today, but, I don't =
know of
any versions of BGP that are so limited other than by memory =
constraints.
> I think a evolved version of ebgp multihop is workable, but you'd =
still need some lightweight form of hooking back into the BGP table.
>=20
Not sure what you mean by this.
Pretty simple, really... ISP advertises default and accepts <CUST> =
prefixes with a simple
prefix filter.
<CUST> accepts default and advertises own prefixes.
Done. Works today. Can mostly be fire-and-forget, even.
> Ideally, ISPs could deploy a number of these route "guides" that would =
inject the proper route into the real BGP table, but by then it is =
filtered and the ISP has proper control over what ends up in it. Some =
ISPs could mark this up as a luxury version.
>=20
Why not just do it as part of the customer interface configuration on =
the edge router? Why add the
complication of an extra box somewhere else to manage?
> Perhaps a form of PI bound to country (Exchange) would be a workable =
solution. So request a piece of "country PI" that is delegated =
explicitly to the roaming guide(s).
>=20
Country PI is fail for a number of reasons.
Owen
