North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Date: Tue Sep 13 16:54:07 2005
On 13-sep-2005, at 21:58, Daniel Senie wrote:
So where were you the past years in multi6 and months in shim6?
Please be part of the solution and not part of the problem. (That
goes for John Payne and Daniel Senie too.)
I was there in the beginning for Multi6. When I saw the direction
(s) that were being considered, I decided the whole concept was a
non-starter and spent my budget of IETF hours on other areas that
had a chance of being useful.
Which is of course your good right.
However, in your message earlier today you were spreading FUD about
the IPv6 address length, a ship that sailed a decade ago. In my book,
that's being part of the problem. Especially since a subset of the
NANOG membership may not be familiar enough with the issues to be
able to see through all of this.
There is one that I always make time for, about four others depending
on time constraints.
Just how many IETF groups do you participate in?
In how many different IETF areas?
Do you also get other work done?
Look up my name on Amazon...
Most folks (perhaps including you) have limited amounts of time to
spend on IETF work. Some folks get paid to do such work by their
employers, while others don't.
Well, I don't have an "employer" so that doesn't apply in my case. :-)
At what point does it make sense as a participant in a working
group to look at the direction and sense of the room and decide
that no amount of arguing is going to keep a trainwreck from
At some point after the requirements discussion, I'd say.
I'm not saying everyone and their dog should co-design the protocol,
but I think it's reasonable to ask people to take 15 minutes to write
down their requirements in a message to the list at that point,
rather than whine later.
Something similar is happening with the RIR policies. People "just
want PI" but they don't want to come up with a policy that makes it
possible to give people who really need PI or a PA block one, while
at the same time making sure the routing tables aren't going to
explode in the future.
I don't know why I bother, but let me tell all of you that the size
of the v4 table TODAY is a problem. A customer of mine wanted to load
balance over two BGP sessions to the same AS, but his linecards
crashed because this required two copies of every route in the FIB,
which didn't fit in the linecard's memory. These were fairly
reasonable Cisco 12000 linecards with 512 MB RAM.
Now in v4 the minimum prefix you'll see is a /24. Since a lot of
address space is already used in larger blocks, and you need to show
decent utilization, there are natural limits to the numbers of /24s
in the routing table. However, in v6 these limits don't apply, so
ANYONE can get a /48 (I have 3 currently). If you accept those in
your routing table that table is going to explode at some point.
So just ignoring the issue is not an option. Still, many people just
want their own portable block, and don't even want to bother THINKING
about the issue.