[75879] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fred Baker)
Sat Nov 27 01:30:12 2004
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:29:15 -0800
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Cc: "Ryan O'Connell" <ryan-nanog@complicity.co.uk>,
Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20041126215734.04b89630@localhost>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
---===--=-=-===-------=----===--=-=-==-====-==--==
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 10:09 PM 11/26/04 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
>IMHO, the rules that qualify someone for an AS number should qualify them
>for a prefix. It need not be a truly long prefix, but larger than a /48.
Reading my own email - that isn't clear.
I think the length of the prefix given to a PI edge network should be
permitted to be larger than a /48 (perhaps a /40 or a /35), but need not be
as large as is given to an ISP (/30). Willing enough to take the /30, but I
think the statistics likely don't support it.
My reasoning: well, I work for an outfit that has an AS number, meaning
that it has a certain number of ISPs. It is also an edge network. It has
~35K employees and VPNs a subnet to each employee's home. It also has lots
of office space, labs, and so on. It has DMZs to the Internet in Australia,
the Netherlands, and a couple of places in the US (at least, might be more).
Provider-dependent addressing is a nightmare for such. Now imagine a truly
large company, like GE or IBM.
Hence, I will argue that more than 65K subnet prefixes should be allowable
to such an edge network. How many more - well, I'll leave that to someone
else to argue.
The thing that brings me out here is the "one size fits all" reasoning that
seems to soll around this community so regularly. "Multihoming should
always use provider-independent addressing" and "Multihoming should always
use provider-dependent addressing" are the statements in this debate. Well,
you know what? The argument relating to someone's home while he is
switching from DSL to Cable Modem access service isn't the same as the
argument for a multinational corporation. I don't see any reason that the
solution has to be the same either.
So here's my proposal. If you qualify for an AS number (have a reasonable
business plan, clueful IT staff, and a certain number of ISPs one connects
with), you should also be able to be a PI prefix.
And if you don't qualify for that, you should probably go provider-dependent.
---===--=-=-===-------=----===--=-=-==-====-==--==
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA+AwUBQagexG4xHWxyLJtDEQJ71gCg7e4PVPIoYsPG56qmPtVUoEqbpkAAmJn2
FcTnQ7stndMY7pIlnR88CEM=
=OYP1
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
---===--=-=-===-------=----===--=-=-==-====-==--==--
