Joel, what if the locator to reach an ISP is not coupled to an AS number, instead the ISP could use a locator to identify an area at the ISP - the area could consist of several AS or only a part of a specific AS of the ISP. If the ISP could have several locators for traffic engineering purposes, i.e. the locator is decoupled from the AS structure, the ISP could create service classes with different attributes for its customer and their incoming traffic. Is this something ISP would be interested in?
There is a strong opinion on to have an identifier in the new architecture. One thing I would like to ask about the identifier - could it be abused and we will get into privacy issues? With HTTP cookies the end user can always make a choice, accept or deny. But if the identifier is a crucial part of the architecture my guess is that enterprise policies will state that the identifier has to be more or less permanent for a user when attached to the enterprise network, for tracking purposes. What about ISP, could they create a similar policy - probably not - but that could depend upon in which country the ISP operates in. Has there been any discussions around identifiers and privacy concerns? -- patte On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as I can tell, trying to create an IPv6 address that is > mathematically equivalent to the AS number does us very little good if we > assume some sort of mapping system (like ILNP.) It also does us very little > good if we assume that customers use PA addresses. > > First, note that AS numbers are now 32 bits. So an AS number solution > presume IPv6. (That doesn't actually bother me, but it is worth > mentioning.) > > Second, the reason I referred to an Ipv6 address is that I am not going to > assume global replacement of core routers and global changes in the core > forwarding paradigm. (Edge changes, yes, we have discussed many of those.) > > Given that, then the primary goal we have already been working towards is > that the IPv6 addresses used in packets in the core be aggregatable > addresses. As such, if we got to the point that these were the only > addresses that were used for packets in the core, we would see significant > benefit in advertisement / FIB size. > > Folks could argue that operators today disaggregate such blocks. And indeed > they sometimes do. They do so for good reasons. Attempting to tell the > operators that they MUST use a system that does not permit that (such as a > pure AS based system without the ability to circulate multiple > advertisements for the AS, will mean that they will refuse to adopt the > solution. For example, while I do not agree that the operators must have > exclusive control over traffic engineering (which is an argument that has > been used against shim6, LISP, ILNP, ...), it is true that they should have > control of the traffic engineering of the paths to their own prefixes. > > Yes, I would prefer to address such a requirement by different tools than > disaggregation and path stuffing. previous efforts to go there have > foundered on teh lack of an incentive for the core operators to make any > changes in that space. (They don't get any benefit until almost everyone > has shifted, and they incur MAJOR costs.) > > And if we had a routing system that gave us TE without disaggregation, then > PA address blocks would be a small enough multiplier that we wouldn't care > if each operator advertised a few of them. > > Hence, there may be some computational (internal to the router) reasons to > focus on the AS first, and there are some dynamics reasons to wonder about > using an AS-centric approach, as long as we have heavily disaggregated > advertisements, in practice this is not in my view really a solution to the > problem. > > Yours, > Joel > > Paul Jakma wrote: >> >> On Sat, 8 May 2010, Dae Young KIM wrote: >> >>> It seems your idea is based on global IP addressing. What I have in mind >>> is to get rid of global addressing. >> >> Yes, I gathered that, but it's unnecessary AFAICT. >> >>> So, IDR routers look only at AS numbers, not at IP addresses which bears >>> no meaning in IDR. >> >> Sure, but why? :) What problem are you trying to address? If you're trying >> to force aggregation by AS, then why not use an IPv6 prefix that embeds the >> ASN? Basically, the underlying forwarding technology isn't the problem - the >> problem is finding a good way to apply some higher-level structure to it. >> >> IPv6 almost certainly has the room to accomodate any reasonable addressing >> structure that can't fit with IPv4. If you're proposing a solution that >> requires all forwarding infrastructure to be upgraded, it'll have to have >> amazing benefits, and be impossible to layer onto IP. >> >> Also you need to consider "Why do we currently have ASes that originate >> multiple disparate prefixes?". >> >> regards, > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
