Re: multihoming, was IPv10

"John Levine" <> Thu, 29 December 2016 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07217129617 for <>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:27:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27qk8G7HscrE for <>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:27:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFF111294FB for <>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:27:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 69681 invoked from network); 29 Dec 2016 16:27:49 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 29 Dec 2016 16:27:49 -0000
Date: 29 Dec 2016 16:27:21 -0000
Message-ID: <20161229162721.34651.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <>
Subject: Re: multihoming, was IPv10
In-Reply-To: <529FEFF25101DE837A8234E1@PSB>
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 16:27:45 -0000

> ...  However, my impression is that we
>are seeing increasing ISP concentration (except, maybe, close to
>the edges of the network, where it makes little difference) and
>less of that traditional type of multihoming.

There's tons of multihoming.  Every medium sized or larger business
wants multiple upstreams for reliability.  They typically get a chunk
of PA IPv4 addresses from each upstream.

This is a big reason why providers don't implement BCP38.  A customer
has one block of addresses from provider A and another from provider
B.  In general each provider only knows about its own address block,
but the traffic comes from both blocks, and the customers get rather
annoyed if a provider doesn't accept their traffic.  ("If you don't
want our $20K/month, we're sure we can find someone else who does.")
Trying to keep track of what customer has what block of someone else's
address space is hopeless, so they just turn off the filters for the
multihomed customers.

This is of course a place where v6 wins, since the customer can
get their own block of PI space, but then there's all those other
v6 deployment problems.