Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size)
jcurran at istaff.org
Thu Sep 26 15:07:03 UTC 2013
On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is with respect
to routing table slots. As it is, we have no real feedback mechanism in the present
system, just conventions that are variably enforced depending on relative stature of
the parties having the discussion. Externalizing the true cost of having a prefix
routed would create a more equitable and fair environment (i.e. knowledge that you
could have any prefix globally routed for a fairly predictable cost, and ability to
weigh the benefits of that versus taking a prefix from your ISP.) It might even
spur research into various interesting alternatives such routing costs for smaller
scopes (regional, geographic, etc.) and cost implications and technical tradeoffs
from various alternative mobility schemes.
That's not to say that establishing a framework for externalizing routing costs would
be easy; it's a complicated and twisted matter, and also fraught with various legal &
competitive aspects. However, it would at least be doing something more than crossing
our fingers and just hoping for the best out of today's "IPv6 prefixes for all"...
Another benefit of such a system (for those fans of market-based approaches) is that
we could better utilize IPv4, rather than the currently implied "/24 is routable, /25
is not" filter-based approach which may not survive the market pressures associated
with IPv4 depletion in any case...
Disclaimer: My views alone. Feel free to ignore this message as desired.
More information about the NANOG