Subject: Re: [rrg] PI and ISP migration

From: Vince Fuller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:23:41 -0700

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 09:11:31AM +0900, Dae Young KIM wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Tony Li <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> ? ?1. Why, in the first place, did people allow sites to inject PI
> >> addresses in DFZ? Why not simply reject PI in DFZ, limiting their use
> >> strictly inside a site?
> >
> >
> > Because that doesn't solve the multi-homed site problem.
> 
> I'd believe/hope that there could have been solutions for multi-homing
> even with keeping this scenario, if people would have enough research
> before ever starting to distribute PI addresses.

It's probably worth mentioning that in the "early days" of the Internet
(before CIDR came along in the early/mid-1990s), there really was no concept
of "PA" and "PI" prefix assignments; every new site connecting to the
Internet obtained a unique block of non-aggregatable address space and a
route for that new block was explicitly propagated into the global routing
system. The distinction between "PI" vs. "PA" and consequent idea of
"rejecting PI" is a relatively new development.

One might argue (and some did argue) that solving the multihoming problem
through locator/identifier separation should have been a fundamental goal
of any "next-generation IP" proposal effort during the 90s. Unfortunately,
such arguments fell on deaf ears so that's why we're faced with retrofitting
a solution now. Not surprisingly, this implies backward-compatibility and
transition issues which tend to make an architecture or design a lot less
elegant than might be desired.

	--Vince

---

From: Dae Young KIM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:41:59 -0700

Hi, Vince,

Thank you for kind explanation.

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Vince Fuller <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
>

-- 
DY