[6bone] non-global address space for IXs (was: 2001:478:: as /48)

[Jeroen Massar]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

John Fraizer [mailto:tvo@EnterZone.Net] wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
> > But as the IX prefixes are only intended for peering exchanges
> > and not for services this all should not be a problem unless you
> > are at that IX, in which case you have a static route, not in BGP.
> 
> Um, you mean a connected route, right?

Ack.

> > People should set up loopback interfaces anyways and use that
> > address for their routers, so that the IX prefix never appears
> > on the wire to the outside world.
> 
> OK.  So in an exchange point situation, where you are 
> connecting to a L2 fabric and using a common network so you can make use of a 
> route-server and not be required to have N^2 BGP sessions to have 
> redundancy, how do you propose this happen?  You just added MORE
> complexity to use a route-server rather than taking it away.

The most usual and easiest way is a switch with a prefix (/64).
That prefix doesn't need to be seen in any BGP table, only as
a static route on the router itself. As you can use a loopback
address, from that router's owner own space and which is globally
routable as a nexthop and there is also no problem whatsoever
with traceroutes etc. This is why we have IX space and why it
is possible to give it out per /48, which is the minimum size
given out to an endsite. An IX can have multiple links, thus
a /64 doesn't suffice -> they get a /48.

Afaik, this is the most logical usage case.

Great example why you don't want to have IX prefixes in BGP and
should actually be actively filtering them and complaining to
the people redistributing is a case where the switching fabric
goes down, you receive the IX prefix over your transit and
suddenly all your bgp sessions go over transit, neat ;)

> Bill never *DEMANDED* that anyone accept 2001:478:: prefixes 
> at all.

He didn't demand it, but apparently he does request it between
the lines. I never saw anybody else mention anything about the
prefixes they where announcing in the IPv6 world. Thus what
else would be the intention except for mailinglist filling?

> He simply made the same announcement that he has for the previous two
> years: Don't expect to see this one as a /32 but rather as 
> /48's, IF you see it at all.

Currently GRH sees the following:

2001:478::/45      2001:1418:1:400::1   12779 3549 6939 109 4555  IGP 
2001:478::/45      2001:610:25:5062::62 1103 11537 6939 109 4555  IGP 
2001:478::/45    > 2001:470:1fff:3::3   6939 109 4555  IGP 
2001:478::/45      2001:610:ff:c::2     1888 1103 11537 6939 109 4555  IGP 
2001:478:65::/48   2001:1418:1:400::1   12779 3549 6939 109 4555  IGP 
2001:478:65::/48   2001:610:25:5062::62 1103 11537 6939 109 4555  IGP 
2001:478:65::/48 > 2001:470:1fff:3::3   6939 109 4555  IGP 
2001:478:65::/48   2001:610:ff:c::2     1888 1103 11537 6939 109 4555  IGP 

Hmmm a /45 is not a /48 last time I did my math test.
So there are aggregates? Why don't make it that nice /32 then
if you want it to be visible.

If you don't want it to be visible, then why don't you slap on
a no-export (okay, which gets dropped by some) or simply don't
distribute it to BGP?

> If you don't like it, filter it.  I could care less, as I'm sure Bill

You could care less, so you actually care, I'll take that is a typo ;)

> could.  If you don't connect to one of the IX's that use 
> EP.NET address space, you never have to see it at all.
> Deal with it and stop your whining, bitching and moaning.

Ouch, did somebody step on or cut off, your foot ?
If you can't make a valid argument, don't resort to feeble
attempts of trying to make it into a flamewar. It just shows
that you don't have any argument in your advantage.
I don't swear, I hope you can deal with that too.

On one hand you say you want it visible, why else does it get
announced and on the other hand you don't care, oddness...
But I am probably just a whi... bit... and a moa...
Personal attacks don't do the content of your message any good.

> Nobody is making you do anything and
> you're not going to make US do anything either.

I never had the intention of making you, apparenty that would
require force anyways. My intention was making clear that the prefix
you are using is *nothing special*, which apparently you are trying to
convince to everybody, but it isn't.

Now you are, between the lines, requesting that everybody not filter
your prefix, tomorrow some other nitwit comes along and simply invents
some /32 from which he/she/it is going to do "multihomed prefixes" and
requests that everybody allows it accross the world. If you want to
change policy, then bring it to the policy department.

I actually also am starting to wonder why this has been brought up
on the 6bone mailinglist and not on for example v6ops as it is RIR
space we are talking about here. But that is next to the point.

> As for AMS-IX predating 2001:478::, perhaps it predates the 
> prefix but it does NOT predate EP.NET or the services that Bill
> has been providing to exchange points in the US.

What has IPv4 to do with IPv6?
This banana is older than that pear, better watch out if it is rotten.

Fortunatly one can renumber, but apparently the EP.NET IX's are
not "normal" IX's, they are special and thus they can't play along
like the rest of the world even though there are policies in place
even way before the allocation was made, without policy no alloc.
And even though apparently suddenly you are no LIR. Hmm politics...

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/

iQA/AwUBP1oRCSmqKFIzPnwjEQIBNQCbBX0TwpKpFcCTWvgCJqEH16xYWhcAnizh
h4DxmNiFN4y8x8GrVWMlqsbT
=n+3e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----