Subject: Re: [arch-d] Re: Notes From Monday Nights Meeting

From: "Fergie" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 06:58:21 GMT

Lee,

I think most of the issues in question came out during the
v6ops meeting today here in San Diego. It was a composite of
issues which have emerged in various operational forums (namely,
NANOG) and also (from what I understand), the IAB architecture
meeting a couple of weeks ago in Amsterdam

Instead of me going into any detail on the data points which
were presented this morning (and which should eventually end
up being posted somewhere?), I'll just say that perhaps the most
controversial (?) issue(s) that came up was w.r.t. how v6 actually
complicates operational aspects of the global routing system -- or
in other words: it doesn't help, it actually contributes to the
existing problem.

If someone else could provide a pointer to the slides/presentation
from this morning's meeting...

- ferg

-- Xiaodong Lee <[email-masked]> wrote:

Dear Dvaid,

Can you show more about the ideas from the workshop?
I am very interested on such kind of things, especially on routing
issues.

Regards!

-- 
-- Xiaodong LEE [The best answer is doing]
   +86-10-58813020 
   mailto:[email-masked]
   http://www.lixiaodong.cn

David Meyer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 12:57:05AM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
>   
>> Dave,
>>     
>>> 	[cc'ing [email-masked] in an attempt to
>>> 	get that going...]
>>>   
>>>       
>> People on this list probably need more context
>> to figure out what problem you are trying
>> to solve.
>>     
>
> 	Yeah, my mistake (and I've had a few private emails to
> 	that effect). 
>
> 	So just to try to clear that up: I'm hoping we can use
> 	this list for discussion of ideas that came out of the
> 	IAB workshop on routing and addressing last week, in the
> 	hope that we will be reaching a wider and more inclusive
> 	audience. 
>
> `	--dmm
>  
>

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg(at)netzero.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:08:48 -0800

All,

	We have a draft workshop report almost done, and we'll
	post it here when its in reasonable shape.

	--dmm

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 17:30:57 +0000

> from this morning's meeting...

For those asking for Vince's slides, they are here:
http://www.vaf.net/~vaf/iepg.pdf

These were presented in v6ops and IEPG.

I think one of the aspects of 'contribbuting to the problem' was simply that
if v6 is turned on where v4 already exists today the routing tables would
grow bigger than many FIBs can handle.   The numbers are in the slides,
from around slide 16 onwards.   But there are also comments on difference
on IPv6 TE etc.

--
Tim

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:34:14 -0800

> from this morning's meeting...

OK, our proceedings are all uploaded, but not the minutes, which I  
haven't received yet from the guy who was taking them. It turns out  
that there is some delay in making them visible; I guess that might  
be tomorrow. The minutes of this part of the meeting are "Dave Meyer,  
Vince Fuller, and Marla Azinger talked. They all think we have a  
scaling problem with every approach that is on the table. They also  
think maybe it should be fixed."

Some files are PDF, and at this point some are powerpoint. The  
proceedings people will turn them all into PDF later on.

---

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:49:05 -0800

> These were presented in v6ops and IEPG.

Those are the slides from IEPG - the "long" version.

The "short" version was presented in v6ops:

    http://www.vaf.net/~vaf/v6ops.pdf

As for what makes ipv6 scaling "worse" - the presentations talk about this
but to summarize: multihoming is implemented in the same way in ipv6 as in
IPv4; there is reason to believe that the biggest driver for routing state
growth is multihoming and that the trend is for more multihoming as time
goes by (in other words, the amount of state is not only growing but the
rate that it is growing is also increasing; the growth curve approximates
something like a polynomial or exponential).

In addition, IPv4 is going to be around for the indefinite future even if
everyone cuts over to ipv6 today. That means that projections of routing
state need to *add* ipv6 prefixes to the growing total for IPv4.

As for one prefix per AS for ipv6 (replying to another message) - the
projections in my presentation actually assume that though it that is almost
certainly an unreasonably low assumption. While, in priciple, most AS's
should be able to satisfy all of their address space needs out of a single
prefix, there quite a few reasons to expect that reality will not be so
clean (consider sites/providers that want to deploy one ipv6 prefix to
replace each IPv4 prefix for simplicity of management, those that span
multiple geographic areas that would like to assign one prefix to each,
etc, etc.)

	--Vince