a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

Edward B. DREGER eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net
Thu Feb 16 03:32:34 UTC 2006

JAK> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:51:16 -0800 (PST)
JAK> From: John A. Kilpatrick

JAK> Maybe I missed it, but is there something in your solution that keeps
JAK> dual-homed leaves from having to renumber when changing ISPs?  In your

Note: I'm approaching this from a "something to do today" IPv4 
standpoint that also works for IPv6.  Subnets lengths are IPv4.

I suggested IP policies similar to current ones: longer than /24 
requires renumbering no matter what, [/24,some_boundary] is a chunk from 
provider space, and shorter than some_boundary may be PI.

Note that /24 is arbitrary; I use it because that is what's found in the 
wild today.  This could be changed.  Likewise, some_boundary has 
existing values.

Others proposed region-specific IPs.  I once believed strongly in that, 
then had mixed feelings... and now believe we should perhaps look at 

In a word, no, I'm not approaching PI space.  It's attractive, but 
requires bigger routing tables or source routing.  IPv6 with /32 
prefixes (conducieve to exact-match hardware) handles the former.  SHIM6 
resembles the latter.

Want to try SHIM6?  Build an IPv4 analog today:  Use multihop eBGP or 
similar to advertise one's upstream routers, then expect the remote end 
to loose source route the return traffic.

JAK> concept, is there some "ownership" of the address space on the part of the
JAK> customer?  I know that being able to swing to a new provider (due one of a
JAK> hundred reasons, including Layer 8 manangement decisions) without having to

Put more directly, IP ranges should be separate from routing policy, 
even for networks of only 10 hosts.  I'll address this in a separate 
thread.  Folks, brush up on your procmail skills...

JAK> renumber or suffer significant downtime is one of the things that makes
JAK> dual-homing appealing.

PI space and multihoming are orthogonal.  A network can have one without 
the other.

Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.

More information about the NANOG mailing list