Hi! Please, somebody, explain me The Big Problem! How routing table size on borders really affects the Internet? But please tell me about REAL routers and REAL situation. I can't see the differense between 10 path static routing and 190000 full view BGP even on old-like-dinosaurus-bones Cisco 3660. What I am doing wrong?
Hi Pekka. Totally agree with you there. At the moment as we have PI with IPv4, and I'll guess there will be lot's of fuzz dropping It. On the other hand. If PI allocations were no more, then the same people you nag about here would try to become their own ASN:s. And the percentage of peers running on cheap 'o pc-boxes would quite possibly increase. Resulting in that the problem with flapping routes would probably remain, or even get worse.
So the problem is really. How do we regulate PI to only be an accepted solution for extreme cases? And still have a fair policy to those who really needs this feature.
Best regards.
--Dennis Lundström GippNET
Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
I don't support PI space to end-sites. We have to get rid of the notion that a random end-site has any business whatsoever in mucking with the global routing tables, either by making it much larger than need be or by polluting it with needless dynamicity.
Example of the latter: deploying inbound traffic engineering adjustment solutions which result in thousands of daily flaps in the advertisements, as shown by Huston's analysis.
We have way too much trouble with clueless ISPs to also add (or continue to add) end-sites to the mix...
....
Now, from practical point of view, it seems there is strong "need" for PI, and it might be a PI policy of some kind might actually get through.
If so, the policy should be such that it minimizes the bad effects of PI and encourages people to use other solutions if those are viable for them (unfortunately, the only way to achieve that appears to be $$$$), in particular (in the rough order of importance):
1. Each assignment must be accompanied by a recurring fee (at least 1000-2000 USD/EUR a year, preferably 5000+). This is peanuts (compared to other costs) to anyone who actually needs this multihoming solution. However, this ensures at least some minimum usage barrier ("those who don't really need this can use different multihoming solutions"), and recovery of the resources back to RIR after the company has gone bankrupt or no longer needs the addresses. If you don't know where to put the extra money, donate it to ISOC or something.
2. one-size-fits-all assignments, period. You get a /48 or /32 (I don't have much preference here), but you must not be able to justify for larger space. This is to avoid the organization from getting a larger block and chopping it into smaller pieces and polluting the global routing table with more specifics which would get past prefix length filters.
3. assignments from a separate address block, set aside for PI. To ease strict "assignment-size only" filtering of these blocks.