[89250] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com)
Mon Mar 6 04:55:03 2006
In-Reply-To: <A32D7FA8-4A8A-4374-8437-9E27A38AD1E6@muada.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 09:57:39 +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> I can tell you this: the only scalable solutions
> on the horizon are:
>
> - moving multihoming related state out of the DFZ (this is what shim6
> does)
This is what geo-topological addressing does.
> - remove the requirement that every DFZ router carries every prefix,
> which can't be done as long as PI blocks sit at the top of the
> addressing hierarchy
Geotop addressing does this also because only a few
aggregates are in the DFZ. The detail is elsewhere.
> The closest thing to a magic, pain-free solution would be to allocate
> PI blocks such that it's possible to aggregate them together and
> ignore the more specifics for far away regions of the world, so that
> in 2030 you don't have to carry 60000 Chinese PI blocks world wide
> that all sit behind the same Great Firewall anyway,
Exactly!
And this doesn't need to be done in a mandatory way. It
can be done so that large providers can continue to use
provider-aggregatable addresses. Geotop addressing is
one of those 80-20 solutions where the largest 20% of
providers mostly use classic IPv6 address but the other
80% of smaller multihomers use geotopologically aggregatable
addresses.
--Michael Dillon
