On Jan 5, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:
So don't you think the decoupling is a good thing? I can see
benefits.
Decoupling is good, but it can go farther...
As I hinted at (oh so long ago) during my presentation at the AMS
workshop, one advantage of indirection-based approaches is that EIDs
do not need to be allocated hierarchically, thus the
To be clear, do you mean according to network topology hierarchy or
you mean in power-of-2 blocks? For the later, you want to allocate in
power-of-2 chunks so your access-lists are kept small. And if the EID
could encode an AS-number of domain-id that the RIR allocates to the
site (read: IPv6 allcoations), then we don't have to have the large
prefix-lists per AS we do today in IPv4.
existing policy constraints for address allocation no longer apply.
The RIRs could continue to hand out 'routing slot conservation
policy'-constrained LOCs since they have the technical
Let's not go this route. Let's have service providers allocate RLOCs
to sites. And just have RIRs allocate EID-prefixes to sites. But RIRs
would allocate PA RLOC prefixes to service providers.
Make sense?
expertise to know what this means. They could also hand out the
EIDs, but since the policy regime for EID allocation is
fundamentally different than LOCs, it might make sense for other
bodies (e.g., national allocation entities like NANPA in the +1
telephone region) to handle that task.
By allocating EID-prefixes based solely on address usage, you only
have a one-dimensional variable.
Let me be clear, I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying,
I'm just adding more to it. Hope you agree with my statements.
Of course, if EIDs aren't handed out hierarchically, the existing
ACL models that rely on locator semantics would obviously break.
Some argue this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing...
I think a non-starter. We shouldn't let this happen.
Dino
Regards,
-drc
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
