Thanks for the responses to my IPv8 note. In case people missed the point, IPv8 addresses are smaller than IPv6. Here are the sizes. IPv4 - 32 bits IPv6 - 128 bits IPv8 - 43 bits (3+8+32) There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8 addressing....8 regions, 256 distribution centers in each region and full 32 bit Internets from there. IPv8 addresses can fit inside the IPv6 address fields. ==== Now...back to the point...NANOG people have the opportunity to help the Internet Community with Address Management and Governance. The specific protocol header is not nearly as critical as a coherent addressing plan that takes routing into consideration and quality of service. I suggest that people learn to manage 43 bit addresses before they try to deal with 128 bit addresses. It does little good to have huge addresses if people can not route packets from A to B because the Address Management is chaotic. NANOG people can help to bring order to the chaos that larger addresses can bring. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI
On Thu, Nov 06, 1997 at 10:16:56AM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8 addressing....8 regions, 256 distribution centers in each region and full 32 bit Internets from there. IPv8 addresses can fit inside the IPv6 address fields.
The problem here, as I see it, is that this _imposes_ a hierarchical structure onto the physical design on the net, which has not been the observed pattern of growth. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
Yes, and when my mother didn't make me go to bed at night, I was rather cranky, and tardy in my multiplication tables and spelling exercises the next day. That we can impose strict hierarchy on address allocations (like our friends at RIPE, APNIC, and InterNIC have done) is part of the reason our networking system has assumed a somewhat manageable growth wrt addressnig. Big Brother impositions are fine, if the benevolent dictatorship really is altruistic. (in community space allocation) -alan DISCLAIMER -- THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY THAT I SUPPORT, CONDONE, OR AGREE WITH JIM FLEMING. RATHER I HARBOR FEARS THAT HE FLIRTS WITH DANGEROUS CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES, AND PERCEIVES THE WORLD IN A MANNER UNLIKE ANY OF SANE MIND AND BODY. Quoting Jay R. Ashworth (jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us):
On Thu, Nov 06, 1997 at 10:16:56AM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8 addressing....8 regions, 256 distribution centers in each region and full 32 bit Internets from there. IPv8 addresses can fit inside the IPv6 address fields.
The problem here, as I see it, is that this _imposes_ a hierarchical structure onto the physical design on the net, which has not been the observed pattern of growth.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
On Wed, Nov 05, 1997 at 08:45:29PM -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:
Yes, and when my mother didn't make me go to bed at night, I was rather cranky, and tardy in my multiplication tables and spelling exercises the next day.
You know, Alan... I could'a sworn I wrote something that equates to "Yeah, Jim, but that's not what peopler _are doing_." <looks> Yep, that's what I wrote.
That we can impose strict hierarchy on address allocations (like our friends at RIPE, APNIC, and InterNIC have done) is part of the reason our networking system has assumed a somewhat manageable growth wrt addressnig.
Big Brother impositions are fine, if the benevolent dictatorship really is altruistic. (in community space allocation)
Any particular reason you're dragging in Big Bother, when what I cited was _the market_?
DISCLAIMER -- THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY THAT I SUPPORT, CONDONE, OR AGREE WITH JIM FLEMING. RATHER I HARBOR FEARS THAT HE FLIRTS WITH DANGEROUS CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES, AND PERCEIVES THE WORLD IN A MANNER UNLIKE ANY OF SANE MIND AND BODY.
And what are _you_ smoking?
Quoting Jay R. Ashworth (jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us):
On Thu, Nov 06, 1997 at 10:16:56AM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8 addressing....8 regions, 256 distribution centers in each region and full 32 bit Internets from there. IPv8 addresses can fit inside the IPv6 address fields.
The problem here, as I see it, is that this _imposes_ a hierarchical structure onto the physical design on the net, which has not been the observed pattern of growth. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sho nuff. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
And what I meant was that they should be. And if they don't want to, they should be forced. -a Quoting Jay R. Ashworth (jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us):
On Wed, Nov 05, 1997 at 08:45:29PM -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:
Yes, and when my mother didn't make me go to bed at night, I was rather cranky, and tardy in my multiplication tables and spelling exercises the next day.
You know, Alan... I could'a sworn I wrote something that equates to "Yeah, Jim, but that's not what peopler _are doing_."
<looks>
Yep, that's what I wrote.
That we can impose strict hierarchy on address allocations (like our friends at RIPE, APNIC, and InterNIC have done) is part of the reason our networking system has assumed a somewhat manageable growth wrt addressnig.
Big Brother impositions are fine, if the benevolent dictatorship really is altruistic. (in community space allocation)
Any particular reason you're dragging in Big Bother, when what I cited was _the market_?
DISCLAIMER -- THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY THAT I SUPPORT, CONDONE, OR AGREE WITH JIM FLEMING. RATHER I HARBOR FEARS THAT HE FLIRTS WITH DANGEROUS CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES, AND PERCEIVES THE WORLD IN A MANNER UNLIKE ANY OF SANE MIND AND BODY.
And what are _you_ smoking?
Quoting Jay R. Ashworth (jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us):
On Thu, Nov 06, 1997 at 10:16:56AM -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:
There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8 addressing....8 regions, 256 distribution centers in each region and full 32 bit Internets from there. IPv8 addresses can fit inside the IPv6 address fields.
The problem here, as I see it, is that this _imposes_ a hierarchical structure onto the physical design on the net, which has not been the observed pattern of growth. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sho nuff.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
On Thu, Nov 06, 1997 at 12:35:50AM -0500, Alan Hannan wrote: [ hierarchical addressing ]
You know, Alan... I could'a sworn I wrote something that equates to "Yeah, Jim, but that's not what peopler _are doing_." And what I meant was that they should be. And if they don't want to, they should be forced.
And, as I noted in a private reply: justify that statement. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592
Jay R. Ashworth demanded:
And, as I noted in a private reply: justify that statement.
Physical topology is likely to map to geographic topology. Circuits certainly do take odd L1 paths to connect L1 endpoints, but these are exceptions, not he rule. Accordingly, not allocating in a geographic fashion lends to deaggregation, which is bad. Even me, as a proponent of fully meshed architectures, recognizes that hierarchy is demanded, and will give rise to efficient network announcments if properly utilized. -alan
Paul Ferguson wrote:
At 02:19 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:
Accordingly, not allocating in a geographic fashion lends to deaggregation, which is bad.
Correction: Not allocating in a topological fashion lends to deaggregation. Geography often has nothing to do with it.
- paul
Paul, We are talking the *world* here, geography is actually important, as well as topology. It is a combination of geography *in conjunction* with topology. I have a neighbor that is only about 2 miles away, however, a trace runs to chicago and back. On the other hand, I have a neighbor, where the next hop is phoenix..... It takes a synergistic build , using *both* these metrics. My two cents... PS. Keep the change. ;)
At 04:21 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Richard Irving wrote:
Correction: Not allocating in a topological fashion lends to deaggregation. Geography often has nothing to do with it.
We are talking the *world* here,
Duh. And geography is *not* important. I can show you several organizational networks located in one country, with their principle Internet connectivity located in another country entirely. Geographic location means absolutely nothing. It is where they connect in the global hierarchy. In the example above, if addresses are allocated solely based on geographic criteria, I can assure you that you will have a much, much larger number of prefixes in the global routing table. Why do you think that the allocating authorities automagically ask requesters to first ask their upstreams for address space? - paul
Paul,
Duh.
You won't mind if I quote you, here? ;-)
And geography is *not* important. I can show you several organizational networks located in one country, with their principle Internet connectivity located in another country entirely. Geographic location means absolutely nothing.
It is where they connect in the global hierarchy.
This is true [at the interprovider level]. Today. However, as deregulation continues [like a freight train with constant acceleration] what will incentivize "organizational networks" to maintain these geographically disparate connections? When Internet demand continues, and more fiber is run, and competitive LEC and IXCs develop in europe, pacrim, and africa, the infrastructure will increase, and these distant connections will become financially prohibitive.* The market will make topology follow geography. But not for a while. The next interesting model to study is that of ubiquitous banwidth. With this model geography will have no bearing on topology. So I see three phases of bandwidth growth, with corresponding effects on the correlation: Time Bandwidth Correlation --------- ----------------------- ------------ Today Consolidated Bandwidth Low Soon Available Bandwidth High Someday Oversupply of Bandwidth Low With an oversupply of bandwidth (like we had w/ long distance providers in the mid to late 80s) backhauling traffic is cost-effective allowing a noncommodity based market to emerge. When South African ISPs can interconnect to a continental operating company/network ina cost effective manner, we can be they'll do so. And this is the trend I envision towards correlating topology and geography. -alan * the key premise I'm making here is that as the value of a local connection increases, geography and topology will converge. As the value of such decreases, they will diverge. The value is a function of the benefit [gained by local content and useful aggregation towars the content [like caches, and large networks building pipes to far-away places, and gaining nice aggregation]] and the cost. The cost is going down as competition increases. The benefit is going up as interesting technologies grow, and providers build larger international networks.
Paul, We agree on all but this small point. Certainly one should allocate ip address space in a topological manner. However, I know of several large NSP/ISPs that don't because there's no [technological or economic] punitive incentive for them to do so. I believe that the correlation between topology and geography will increase as a function of time. In fact, I believe that today the correlation is quite high. The lack of correlation is the exception, in my experience, than the rule. -alan Quoting Paul Ferguson (ferguson@cisco.com):
At 02:19 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:
Accordingly, not allocating in a geographic fashion lends to deaggregation, which is bad.
Correction: Not allocating in a topological fashion lends to deaggregation. Geography often has nothing to do with it.
- paul
At 04:35 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:
The lack of correlation is the exception, in my experience, than the rule.
I'm not sure I agree, but that's not really the point. I believe the point is that we should not assume that they are one and the same. Topology (or as they say in IPv6-speak, aggregator, next-level-aggregator, etc.) is quite critical in maintaining sufficient levels of aggregation. - paul
I have left off a clause that makes my point of view inconsistent. My comments regarding geographic correlation were with regards to a specific [example of a] provider's network allocation. On a provider by provider basis, topology does, and will increasingly, match geography. Networks that span large geographic areas should be deaggregated into regional ares such that aggregation can be efficiently implemented. Additionally, within this provider, they should allocate their chunk of the address space in a geographic manner. So you have correlation at the high level (providers in an area) and at a low level (particular provider's IP addressing in a small area). I did not mean to [though I certainly did] imply that 2 separate providers would have a strong correlation of IP address allocation in a locallized geographic region. Let's take these examples: KINDISP has a network in 4 continents. They obtain 4 separate sets of network space from the corresponding NICs. They then develop an allocation plan [ignoring crystal balls, but utilizing inferences from business plans and historical trends] and allocate netblocks in a regional manner. DUMBISP had a network in 1 continent. They expand into 3 more and continue to use their same original netblock. They allocate addresses chronologically, instead of geographically. This continental allocation is being done today, the NSP's internal allocation is what I was attempting to focus on. -alan Quoting Paul Ferguson (ferguson@cisco.com):
At 04:35 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:
The lack of correlation is the exception, in my experience, than the rule.
I'm not sure I agree, but that's not really the point.
I believe the point is that we should not assume that they are one and the same. Topology (or as they say in IPv6-speak, aggregator, next-level-aggregator, etc.) is quite critical in maintaining sufficient levels of aggregation.
- paul
Alan, Thinking about your response, I am reminded of the MUST and SHOULD semantics in the context of IETF documents. ;-) - paul At 05:03 PM 11/6/97 -0500, Alan Hannan wrote:
Networks that span large geographic areas should be deaggregated into regional ares such that aggregation can be efficiently implemented.
Additionally, within this provider, they should allocate their chunk of the address space in a geographic manner.
On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Jim Fleming wrote:
Thanks for the responses to my IPv8 note.
In case people missed the point, IPv8 addresses are smaller than IPv6. Here are the sizes.
IPv4 - 32 bits IPv6 - 128 bits IPv8 - 43 bits (3+8+32)
There is a natural routing hierarchy with IPv8 addressing....8 regions, 256 distribution centers in each region and full 32 bit Internets from there. IPv8 addresses can fit inside the IPv6 address fields.
Make sure that the alternic crowd (when they get out of jail) controls one of those 8 regions. This scheme imposes an administrative hierarchy to addressing/networking which is not conducive to the kind of growth we have seen to date. Granted, there will be an administrative hierarchy no matter how you structure addresses, but I would rather that the consumer decides who is going to administer the tiers of such a hierarchy instead of leaving that decision to the protocol fairy. brad reynolds ber@cwru.edu "Faith: not wanting to know what is true." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
participants (6)
-
Alan Hannan -
Bradley Reynolds -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jim Fleming -
Paul Ferguson -
Richard Irving