Re: [v6ops] [GROW] Deaggregation by large organizations

Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de> Thu, 16 October 2014 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <erey@ernw.de>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5711A88D4; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:05:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wvr66D-WEvef; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.ernw.net (mx1.ernw.net [62.159.96.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1980D1A8862; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mh1.ernw.net (unknown [IPv6:fd00:2001:0:d001::10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mh1.ernw.net", Issuer "ernw ca1" (verified OK)) by mx1.ernw.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C13C815EC29; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:05:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ws25.ernw.net (ws25.ernw.net [172.31.100.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ws25.ernw.net", Issuer "ernw ca1" (verified OK)) by mh1.ernw.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E9B64E0; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:05:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by ws25.ernw.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 76AD9C4876; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:42:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:42:40 +0200
From: Enno Rey <erey@ernw.de>
To: v6ops@ietf.org, grow@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20141016194240.GB45422@ernw.de>
References: <F5C06CAF-0AD2-4225-8EE7-FC72CE9913F0@muada.com> <CAL9jLaZLWG5cKPPhTtLtvn9OQOYwYjdgHCUXsWi3pZJjK+nAbQ@mail.gmail.com> <903173CE-64D6-4FE5-98DB-B408C9586A02@muada.com> <CAL9jLaZiUfb2Pz--nWMq_=DhSz0m4uwDcyPs19PVuq=t6vpyxA@mail.gmail.com> <20141016162257.GH44748@ernw.de> <543FF8C0.9040900@massar.ch> <20141016165306.GA44951@ernw.de> <54401125.8060607@massar.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54401125.8060607@massar.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/gS2CG7Y2Yly2XNIWpnJpluhLbt8
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [GROW] Deaggregation by large organizations
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:05:38 -0000

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:40:37PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> There is a reason why there are PA and PI blocks... or you know,
> >>> pay for transiting the aggregate...
> > 
> > well ... yes. not sure to what extent $RIRs act accordingly (have
> > been involved in requesting resources from all five of them in the
> > past and can tell you 1st hand that there's quite some encouraging
> > $LARGE_ENTERPRISES to bec ome LIRs, in one way or the other).
> 
> As you are the consultant, your job to get them there right?
> 
> Nothing the IETF can do about that part.

Iljitsch initially submitted this to BCOP... which could be a place to discuss it.
that said, you're fully right, IETF has never cared for "enterprise needs" (not implying they should, just noting), and hence - imho - done quite some harm to global IPv6 deployment. but that's another topic.



> 
> > there
> > must be a reason, why - as far as I can tell - _pretty much all_
> > large German companies have joined the elitist LIR club in the last
> > two years, preparing their IPv6 depl oyment.
> 
> Because they all wanted a /32 PA for near zero paperwork.

or because RIRs encouraged them to do so, in several ways?
potential reasoning I leave up to the imagination of the reader...


> 
> > RIRs are happily playing
> > that game which is exactly why debate & consensus are needed (and
> > probably Iljitsch brought this to BCOP).
> > 
> > that said, $FOLK would pay for it.
> 
> The numbers in your slides show that those companies have more than
> enough "resources" to be able to set up a proper network or let some
> transit backhaul the traffic.

thanks for the generous advice what a "proper network" is. much appreciated.


> 
> No need to de-aggregate and burden the rest of the world with that though.
> 
> I would blame the consultant for hinting at the wrong solution for their
> enterprise...

given all those organizations do the same silly stuff, seems they are all consulted to by a unified group of consultants not possessing your enormous amount of wisdom and of large scale enterprise network experience.
so what's your practical advice to solve the apparent dilemma Iljitsch pointed out and thereby substantial contribution to the debate? thanks in advance &

have a good one

Enno


 




> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen

-- 
Enno Rey

ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de
Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 

Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey

=======================================================
Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
=======================================================