nanog mailing list archives
Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size)
From: John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:07:03 -0400
On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is with respect to routing table slots. As it is, we have no real feedback mechanism in the present system, just conventions that are variably enforced depending on relative stature of the parties having the discussion. Externalizing the true cost of having a prefix routed would create a more equitable and fair environment (i.e. knowledge that you could have any prefix globally routed for a fairly predictable cost, and ability to weigh the benefits of that versus taking a prefix from your ISP.) It might even spur research into various interesting alternatives such routing costs for smaller scopes (regional, geographic, etc.) and cost implications and technical tradeoffs from various alternative mobility schemes. That's not to say that establishing a framework for externalizing routing costs would be easy; it's a complicated and twisted matter, and also fraught with various legal & competitive aspects. However, it would at least be doing something more than crossing our fingers and just hoping for the best out of today's "IPv6 prefixes for all"... Another benefit of such a system (for those fans of market-based approaches) is that we could better utilize IPv4, rather than the currently implied "/24 is routable, /25 is not" filter-based approach which may not survive the market pressures associated with IPv4 depletion in any case... FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Feel free to ignore this message as desired.
Current thread:
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size, (continued)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Randy Bush (Sep 26)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size TJ (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size William Herrin (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size bmanning (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size bmanning (Sep 26)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Ben (Sep 30)
- Fwd: minimum IPv6 announcement size Alexander Neilson (Sep 30)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 30)
- RE: minimum IPv6 announcement size Lustgraaf, Paul J [ITNET] (Sep 30)
- Message not available
- Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size) John Curran (Sep 26)
- Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size) William Herrin (Sep 26)
- Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size) Randy Bush (Sep 26)
- Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size) John Curran (Sep 27)
- Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size) Scott Brim (Sep 26)
- Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size) William Herrin (Sep 27)
- Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size) Steven Bellovin (Sep 28)
- Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size) Blake Dunlap (Sep 28)
- Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size) John Curran (Sep 30)
- RE: minimum IPv6 announcement size Steve Bertrand (Sep 24)
- Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size Nathanael C. Cariaga (Sep 24)