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

[John Fraizer]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> > 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).

And that /64 (or /48 as it may be) is a connected route.  It becomes a
*seemless* fusion between ASNs.  Nexthops are handed out by the Route
Server and no further intervention is required on the part of
participants.  The nexthop is part of the IX address space, which is a
*connected* route.  No static routes required.  On the other hand, if that
address space is not globally routed, it breaks PMTU-Disc, traceroute,
etc.


> 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

Usingt owner address space requires that static routes be added for every
peer.  Which part of "Peering at an exchange point is *easier* than
multiple bilateral peering sessions" did you not understand when the
virtues of IX's were explained?

Look.  If you want to do it in a broken, antiquated way, that is just
fine.  Don't expect us to do so.  If you want to filter the address space
used for IX's managed by EP.NET, that is just fine.  Stop bitching and
moaning though.  You quite OBVIOUSLY have much less experience in the
arena than myself, let alone Bill and simply want to bitch and moan and
see your own emails echoed by the list.  Get over yourself.

> 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 ;)

No.  Actually, that is a great example of YOU not understanding how to
properly configure your BGP sessions and preferences.  Don't expect us to
make changes to accomodate your being void of appropriate clue.

> > 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?

You, Son, are the one who appears to be interested in Mailing list
filling.  If you don't want to accept the /48 that's *FINE* but, I *BEG OF
YOU!!!* GET OVER YOURSELF!  Drop it.  I couldn't give a rats ass if you
carry the /48 we use at ISI-LAP.  I'm serious.  Get over yourself and DROP
IT!

> > 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.

Again, get over yourself.  Filter your ass off.  I don't care.  Just
frigging DROP IT!
> 
> 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 want to accept it, why don't you filter it?  Just recently,
someone posted about people not honoring no-export yet, you want us to use
it?  Sheesh.  Make up your mind.

> > 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 ;)
> 

I *COULD ***NOT*** CARE LESS IF MY TRAFFIC MAKES IT IN AND OUT OF YOUR
PO-DUNK, WANNA-BE, WISH I WAS A REAL PROVIDER* network.  Does that make it
clear enough for you?

> 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.

There is no argument.  If you don't want to accept the routes, you don't
have to.  You're wasting our time, and bandwidth with your constant
whining and rehashing of the same bullshit.  DROP IT, you CHILD!

> 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...

I don't care if YOU can see it.  You see, you, believe it or not, have the
power to NOT accept the prefix.  If you don't want to, you don't have to
accept it.  Deal with it.


> But I am probably just a whi... bit... and a moa...
> Personal attacks don't do the content of your message any good.

And whining and bitching and moaning don't do you any good either.  If you
don't want to accept the prefixes, don't accept them but for GODS SAKE,
stop your frigging whining about it!  

> 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.

Nobody tried to convince anyone that the prefix was special.  It is being
used in a non-conventional way and that was pointed out so that those who
DESIRED to accept the prefix would KNOW that it was LEGIT.

> 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.

When did ANYONE request that it not be filtered?  Bill simply notified
that the prefix would appear as /48's.  He didn't say, "Please don't
filter this."  It was a "For your information" post.  DEAL WITH IT!

> 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.

You just want to complain, don't you?   Which ASNs do you control?  I want
to update my "Bitch filters".

--
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc 
(13944+$|13944+_14813+$|13944+_17266+$)
PGP Key = 6C5903C4
Fingerprint = 2AA6 6614 1B5E EDD2 38AD C417 3E61 F975 6C59 03C4