BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32)

Sat Nov 27 06:29:15 UTC 2004

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. 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 170 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041126/d9f1ba54/attachment.sig>