Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Tue Apr 5 07:45:19 UTC 2022

Considering this requires updating every single IP stack that wants to
utilise this, what are the benefits of it other than just moving to IPv6?

Regards,
Dave

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 08:24, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG <
nanog at nanog.org> wrote:

> Hello Matthew
>
>
>
> At the moment the draft has a general architecture, and it will take the
> right minds and experience to turn a model into a live network. Considering
> what the people in this list have already built, it’s no gigantic leap to
> figure they can build that too. Most of the building blocks that are
> implicit or TBD in the draft exist already.
>
>
>
> About linking ASN to realms, that’s Eduard’s view, I’ll let him answer.
> The draft is not like that, all existing ASN and IP addresses can be reused
> in every new realm, and there does not need to be any mapping. If people
> find a need or a reason to add constraints, that’s beyond me at this time,
> and against the natural philosophy of minimizing interdependences to
> maintain design freedom in each realm. The draft has one and one only
> dependency, that surface of the shaft is common to all realms.
>
>
>
> To your point, and unrelated to ASNs, the shaft can be physically
> distributed. Each physical place would announce 240.0.0.0/6, and the
> nearest alive would attract the traffic. See it as as many IXPs. In the
> current draft, there’s only one shaft that links all realms. And there’s a
> single realm number for each realm that is advertised in every physical
> instances of the shaft. All that is a  simplification to highlight the
> design.
>
>
>
> As the shaft lives on, a realm may be multihomed, the shaft might be
> subnetted to interconnect only specific realms, or to be advertised
> differently in different geographies. And then the subnets will need to be
> injected in the realms. The way around a breakage can be DNS, or BGP.
>
>
>
> All this is possible, you’ve already done it, and it’s really your play.
> We build the car, you drive it. Happy that you start figuring out how you
> prefer it to happen. While we figure out protocols to renumber more
> efficiently, fix source address selection, extend the NATs, you name it.
> There’s work for all and at every phase. But at this stage of the
> discussion, I favor the 10 miles view to get a shared basic understanding.
>
>
>
> On the side, I’d be happy to learn how you solved a situation like the one
> below, if there’s any article / doc?
>
>
>
> Keep safe;
>
>
>
> Pascal
>
>
>
> *From:* Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com>
> *Sent:* mardi 5 avril 2022 0:29
> *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard at huawei.com>
> *Cc:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert at cisco.com>; Nicholas Warren <
> nwarren at barryelectric.com>; Abraham Y. Chen <aychen at avinta.com>; Justin
> Streiner <streinerj at gmail.com>; NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported
> re: 202203261833.AYC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:41 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG <
> nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
>
> 240.0.01.1 address is appointed not to the router. It is appointed to
> Realm.
> It is up to the realm owner (ISP to Enterprise) what particular router (or
> routers) would do translation between realms.
>
>
>
> Please forgive me as I work this out in my head for a moment.
>
>
>
> If I'm a global network with a single ASN on every populated continent
>
> on the planet, this means I would have a single Realm address; for
>
> the sake of the example, let's suppose I'm ASN 42, so my Realm
>
> address is 240.0.0.42.  I have 200+ BGP speaking routers at
>
> exchange points all over the planet where I exchange traffic with
>
> other networks.
>
>
>
> In this new model, every border router I have would all use the
>
> same 240.0.0.42 address in the Shaft, and other Realms would
>
> simply hand traffic to the nearest border router of mine, essentially
>
> following a simple Anycast model where the nearest instance of the
>
> Realm address is the one that traffic is handed to, with no way to do
>
> traffic engineering from continent to continent?
>
>
>
> Or is there some mechanism whereby different instances of 240.0.0.42
>
> can announce different policies into the Shaft to direct traffic more
>
> appropriately that I'm not understanding from the discussion?
>
>
>
> Because if it's one big exercise in enforced Hot Potato Routing with
>
> a single global announcement of your reachability...
>
>
>
> ...that's gonna fail big-time the first time there's a major undersea
>
> quake in the Strait of Taiwan, which cuts 7/8ths of the trans-pacific
>
> connectivity off, and suddenly you've got the same Realm address
>
> being advertised in the US as in Asia, but with no underlying connectivity
>
> between them.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.submarinenetworks.com/news/cables-cut-after-taiwan-earthquake-2006
>
>
>
> We who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...badly.   :(
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220405/f4287266/attachment.html>