Re: [v6ops] Two prefixes [draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance WGLC]

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Arturo,

On 08/08/2012 16:28, Arturo Servin wrote:
> 	No, I didn't say that.
> 
> 	1) if you are small, multi-homed you should use BGP+PI.
> 
> 
> 	2) if you are small and uni-home use PA.
> 
> 		
> 	If 1 does not scale (I would question that), it is a problem that we should solve elsewhere.

Yes, of course, and that was the main focus of the Routing Research Group for
a couple of years (see RFC 6115). It's pretty clear that it doesn't scale to
millions of sites with currently deployable technology. That being so,
IMHO v6ops has to be cautious about encouraging widespread usage. (This
applies generally, not just to ICPs, of course.)

   Brian

> 	There are other solutions for 1, but I would not recommend them as a best practice, just like workarounds to use PA and avoid BGP.
> 
> 	1 and 2 are orthogonal to the fact that the ICP is as well an enterprise or not.
> 
> Regards,
> as
> 
> On 8 Aug 2012, at 12:16, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> On 08/08/2012 15:59, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>> Brian,
>>>
>>> 	But we are not talking about enterprises, we are talking about ICPs, which IMHO are two different problems and advices.
>> To be clear, I intended to talk about either pure specialised ICPs, or an enterprise that
>> wishes to behave as an ICP for its own content.
>>
>>> 	For Enterprises, yes PA and PI are debatable (as discussed in many places, many times) and more dependent on the size and type of enterprise, for ICPs I think we are more or less in consensus that PI is more much common (and IMO the recommendation).
>>>
>>> 	Perhaps, the corner case are "small ICPs" which if they are uni-homed, then PA is fine, if they are multi-homed then BGP+PI should be the recommendation no matter if they are small or large.
>> But that's the case that doesn't scale to millions. Are you suggesting that
>> we have to tell them "you can't serve your own content reliably, because
>> you're too small"?
>>
>>    Brian
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> as
>>>
>>> On 8 Aug 2012, at 09:12, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>
>>>> My concern here, as I've already hinted, is publishing advice that is
>>>> valid for the N thousand enterprises that can reasonably expect to get
>>>> a PI prefix but nothing for the N million others that may wish to serve
>>>> up content *and* be multihomed.
>>>
> 
>