Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt

Scott Leibrand <sleibrand@internap.com> Wed, 11 July 2007 19:53 UTC

Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8iG2-0007sZ-Ii; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:53:54 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8iG0-0007sL-Cz for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:53:52 -0400
Received: from mailserver1.internap.com ([63.251.68.1]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8iFg-0007NV-R2 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:53:52 -0400
Received: from [209.112.219.231] (account sleibrand@mail.internap.com HELO [192.168.1.103]) by mailserver1.internap.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 85987476; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:53:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4695350B.7090201@internap.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:52:43 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand@internap.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roger Jorgensen <rogerj@jorgensen.no>
References: <200706251556.l5PFu6Qa057410@mail.reprise.com><078201c7bdb0$503f2dc0$543816ac@atlanta.polycom.com><94065E4E-7A57-46AC-8A13-D7591C26EA13@apple.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.0707101337220.9923@chandra.student.uit.no><FEB5791F-8495-4905-8D6C-D454F46FD976@apple.com><22851.1184090216@sa.vix.com><B29043A9-6165-47FB-B83A-0A5272A0C451@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707111133400.9923@chandra.student.uit.no> <D03E4899F2FB3D4C8464E8C76B3B68B0AA2CAA@E03MVC4-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net> <28681.1184163817@sa.vix.com> <072c01c7c3dd$122b6110$36822330$@net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707112026200.9923@chandra.student.uit.no>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707112026200.9923@chandra.student.uit.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Tony Hain wrote:
>> I have a few points on Paul's draft:
> <snip>
>> Major complaint -  aggregation
>>     There needs to be at least a modest capability to aggregate. I
>> understand the aversion to having these show up in the DFZ, but if 
>> 5.1 were
>> really true that would not be an issue. The use case that needs to be
>> supported is for internal aggregation of private peering clusters. 
>> Global
>> organizations have many external relationships, but typically have them
>> clustered in small groupings for logistics reasons. At the same time 
>> they
>> don't necessarily want to carry the explicit routes for every 
>> organization
>> throughout their internal network. If the ULA-C/G space has some modest
>> aggregation  like sparse allocation of the RIR num block to allow 
>> clustering
>> subsequent block to the same RIR and a suggestion for E-W-N-S regional
>> management within the RIR space, then it would be possible to 
>> aggregate the
>> internal routes to these private peering clusters.
>
> IF we assume and prepare the ground for aggregation, would that just 
> make it easier in the future for this type of addresses being leaked?

<snip>

> which again give us some sort of aggregation... is this something we 
> want? (althought it would fit us, where I work, perfectly since we 
> would get almost all the space we need quite easy:-)

I would agree with Tony that aggregation of ULA-G space should be 
allowed.  I know there are many others who disagree, but IMO mutually 
assured destruction isn't called for here.  As long as we have an 
expectation that routes will be filtered, and have the ability to easily 
do so, I don't think it matters whether we have lots of non-aggregated 
routes or fewer aggregated ones...


-Scott

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------