[165938] in North American Network Operators' Group
Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Thu Sep 26 11:36:55 2013
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see
http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse
reporting information)
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130926085250.GA8058@vacation.karoshi.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:07:03 -0400
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is =
with respect=20
to routing table slots. As it is, we have no real feedback mechanism in =
the present
system, just conventions that are variably enforced depending on =
relative stature of=20
the parties having the discussion. Externalizing the true cost of =
having a prefix=20
routed would create a more equitable and fair environment (i.e. =
knowledge that you=20
could have any prefix globally routed for a fairly predictable cost, and =
ability to=20
weigh the benefits of that versus taking a prefix from your ISP.) It =
might even=20
spur research into various interesting alternatives such routing costs =
for smaller=20
scopes (regional, geographic, etc.) and cost implications and technical =
tradeoffs
from various alternative mobility schemes.
That's not to say that establishing a framework for externalizing =
routing costs would=20
be easy; it's a complicated and twisted matter, and also fraught with =
various legal &
competitive aspects. However, it would at least be doing something more =
than crossing=20
our fingers and just hoping for the best out of today's "IPv6 prefixes =
for all"... =20
Another benefit of such a system (for those fans of market-based =
approaches) is that=20
we could better utilize IPv4, rather than the currently implied "/24 is =
routable, /25=20
is not" filter-based approach which may not survive the market pressures =
associated=20
with IPv4 depletion in any case...
FYI,
/John
Disclaimer: My views alone. Feel free to ignore this message as =
desired.=
