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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 10/16/14 7:59 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:45:23AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>> A strong message to that extent would be good :-) - coupled with
>>> some recommendations how the conflicting goals ("I want all ISPs in
>>> my neighbourhood to use optimal routing" vs. "someone in Asia might
>>> not be interested in all in 5k routes for german municipality")
>>> could be solved.
>>
>> ok, perhaps iljitsch can drop some text into a document so we can get
>> a good read going and decide whether or not GROW wants to spend cycles
>> on it?
> 
> That would be nice (as I see the problem but have no cycles to write
> something useful).
> 
>> The problem exists in v4 and v6 and likely will persist in whatever
>> comes next. It's directly related to routing operations work on the
>> global intertubes, so it SEEMS like GROW is the 'right place' to
>> discuss this... we can't go anywhere without text and a draft though.
> 
> It seems to be made worse by the fact that "this" can be done more
> easily with IPv6, as you just can't get enough v4 space to subdivide
> it into 5000 globally visible prefixes today - and those entities that
> discover the "must have reliability!  must have independence!" mantra
> *now* will hit the v6 space...  (given that I see this argument in this
> dimension more often from governmental structures who have been hiding
> behind single-IPv4-NAT so far).

The number of autonomous systems present in the internet is a good proxy
for the number of organizations that find this necessary. It is not a
proxy for the number of prefixes each of those ASes choose to advertise
though somewhat less than half of those ASNs advertise one prefix only.

http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/plot?file=%2fvar%2fdata%2fbgp%2fas2.0%2fbgp-as-count%2etxt&start=0&end=1413472455&width=0%2e9&height=0%2e3&with=step&ylabel=AS+Count


>>> I get that question fairly often from "largish networks", and so far,
>>> I always have to answer "there is no routing police, so it's hard to
>>> say what is allowed on the Internet and what not" - which is a humorous
>>> way to say "there is no consensus here what consists 'good' and
>>> 'responsible'"...
>>
>> I sort of don't want there to be 'routing police' though :( In a way
>> this whole debate sounds like something a 'cisco training class' (or
>> other example) would have covered, or should cover. I suppose it's
>> fairly experiential at this point though.
> 
> I *do* want a routing police, in the sense that "the operator community"
> agrees on what is considered "good" and "bad" behaviour, so end users
> can ask someone (me, Iljitsch, ...) what to do in their network planning,
> and we can tell them
> 
>   - if you do *this*, it's "guaranteed" to work
>   - if you do *that*, you can be sure that you will be filtered
> 
> while today, I have to tell them
> 
>   - well, today it is likely to work, but it might stop working tomorrow,
>     and there is no document that you could show around to those that
>     break your connectivity to show them that "you are doing the right thing"
> 
> ISPs develop their own guidelines on prefix-length filtering, some with
> better understanding on what they want to achieve, others by using 10 year
> old example documents for never-updated filters...
> 
> So, yes, guidance, please :-)
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>