v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Wed Jan 2 23:09:41 UTC 2008
On 2 jan 2008, at 22:34, Joe Abley wrote:
> The community who would like the knob not to be "deaggregate" are
> the same ones that are doing the deaggregation, which I think is as
> it should be from a macro level
More precise: the two sets of people are part of the same community.
I'm not sure if there's much overlap between the really bad
deaggregators and those who are strongly pro-knob, though.
> As to "there must be better knobs" I think it may be a little late
> for that; by design (or as a consequence of it) the set of IPv6
> knobs is the same as the set of IPv4 knobs.
The trouble is that BGP doesn't have a meaningful inter-AS metric.
(Although there is something that is called that.) If I want to
increase my path length by 10% through a certain neighboring AS, I
don't get to do that. I only get to double or triple it. (Unless I was
doing very heavy prepending to begin with.)
This is easy to fix by adding a new metric to BGP that is increased by
10 or 100 or 1000 at each hop by default, but which can also be
increased by a larger or smaller amount as desired. In essence, this
would make the AS path a lot more granular. Obviously this only works
if a fairly large set of ASes implements this.
However, word on the street is that in order to get a new BGP
attribute defined in the IETF idr wg, you need assurances up front
that people are actually going to implement and use that new attribute.
More information about the NANOG
mailing list