Hi Joel, To use AS path prepend when you advertise just one prefix does not solve the problem...in this case it actually make it worth, 'cos you may find all your trafic coming from only one of your uplinks.
Nicolas. On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote: joelja >Nicolás Antoniello wrote: joelja >> Hi Steve, joelja >> joelja >> Sure... I've never mention 3 STM4... the example said 3 carriers. joelja >> joelja >> OK, you may do it with communities, but if you advertise all in just one joelja >> prefix, even with communities, I find it very difficult to control the joelja >> trafic when it pass through 2 or more AS (it may be quite easy for the joelja >> peer AS, but what about the other ASs)? joelja > joelja >AS path prepend? joelja > joelja >It's a gross nob. But it's not like there's no precedent for it's use. joelja > joelja >joelja joelja > joelja >> Nicolas. joelja >> joelja >> joelja >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote: joelja >> joelja >> steve. >Hi Nicolas, joelja >> steve. > you will never make 2GB of traffic go down one STM4 or even 3x STM4! joelja >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >But you are asking me about load balancing amongst 3 upstreams... joelja >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >Deaggregation of your prefix is an ugly way to do TE. If you buy joelja >> steve. >from carriers that support BGP communities there are much nicer joelja >> steve. >ways to manage this. I've never deaggregated and I have had and do joelja >> steve. >have individual prefixes that generate more traffic than any joelja >> steve. >single GE link. joelja >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >Steve joelja >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 12:11:58PM -0300, Nicolás Antoniello wrote: joelja >> steve. >> Hi Stephen, joelja >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> Supose you have STM4 links, ok? joelja >> steve. >> And you have 2G of trafic from your 100000 ADSL customers, ok? joelja >> steve. >> And those STM4 go to 3 dif carriers in USA. joelja >> steve. >> Then, how you advertise only one IPv6 prefix to all and make the 2G go joelja >> steve. >> trough one STM4 ? joelja >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote: joelja >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >Hi Christian, joelja >> steve. >> steve. > I am not seeing how v4 exhaustion, transition to v6, multihoming in v6 and destruction ov DFZ are correlated. joelja >> steve. >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >If you took everything on v4 today and migrated it to v6 tomoro the routing table would not grow - actually by my calculation it should shrink (every ASN would only need one prefix to cover its current and anticipated growth). So we'll see 220000 routes reduce to 25000. joelja >> steve. >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >The technology we have now is not driving multihoming directly and v4 vs v6 is not a factor there. joelja >> steve. >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >So in what way is v6 destroying DFZ? joelja >> steve. >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >Steve joelja >> steve. >> steve. > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:13:50PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote: joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Amazink! Some things on NANOG _never_ change. Trawling for trolls I must be. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> If you want to emulate IPv4 and destroy the DFZ, yes, this is trivial. And you should go ahead and plan that migration. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> As you well known, one of the core assumptions of IPv6 is that the DFZ policy stay intact, ostensibly to solve a very specific scaling problem. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> So, go ahead and continue talking about migration while ignoring the very policies within which that is permitted to take place and don't let me interrupt that ranting. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Best Regards, joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Christian joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> -- joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Sent from my BlackBerry. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> -----Original Message----- joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> From: Stephen Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:55:06 joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> To:Christian Kuhtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Cc:Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> Steve joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote: joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is pretty pointless. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > -- joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Sent from my BlackBerry. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > -----Original Message----- joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > From: Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33 joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > To:Donald Stahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED] joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote: joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> 7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3. If we'd (the joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> Google's applications whether the content came from a site hosted joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > >> on a v4 address, or a v6 address, or even both. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > > If Google does not have v6 connectivity then how are they going to joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > > crawl those v6 sites? joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > I think we're debating from very similar positions... joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > v6 isn't the ideal scenario of '96 extra bits for free', because if joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > life was so simple, we wouldn't need to ask this question. joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > Andy joelja >> steve. >> steve. >> > joelja >> steve. >> steve. > joelja >> steve. > joelja >
