IP4 Space

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Fri Mar 5 16:20:19 CST 2010



On 03/05/2010 01:48 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> If this is done right, direct assignment holders and ISPs are
>> issued sufficiently large prefixes such that the prefix count per
>> entity remains small.
> 
> This sort of assumes Internet connectivity models of today,
> specifically that most address assignments are singly-homed and thus
> can be aggregatedd within a larger provider independent block, will
> remain the model of tomorrow.  I have some skepticism this will be
> true.  When entertainment, communications, monitoring, etc. are all
> provided via always-on IP connectivity, I suspect you'll see folks
> have less tolerance for even momentary outages.

Multihoming while protecting your overall availabity isn't going to
solve your momentary outage issue, convergence takes time (see bgp
wedgies)... precomputed backup paths are of course the current cause
celebre whether that be in intra-domain mpls or ipfrr. one can end-up
quite deep down a rat-hole depending on the depth of the alternative
paths that might be choosen to be computed. It would be deeply ironic I
suppose of ipfrr were to produce new opportunities for instability that
are more destructive than micro-loops currently are.

> And that's not even
> considering mobility solutions that rely on the routing system (e.g.,
> stuff like Boeing's Connexion (RIP)).

Having the mobility agent for your airplane appear in the DFZ while cool
was a fairly bad idea.

There are in fact a surprisingly small number of objects which make
rapid transcontinental transitions. and I'm personally of the belief
that the DFZ routing table isn't really the place to solve that problem,
for the same reason we don't solve the cellular mobility problem there
either.

> We'll see I suppose.
> 
> Regards, -drc
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list