Considering this requires updating every single IP stack that wants to utilise this, what are the benefits of it other than just moving to IPv6?
Regards, Dave On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 08:24, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > Hello Matthew > > > > At the moment the draft has a general architecture, and it will take the > right minds and experience to turn a model into a live network. Considering > what the people in this list have already built, it’s no gigantic leap to > figure they can build that too. Most of the building blocks that are > implicit or TBD in the draft exist already. > > > > About linking ASN to realms, that’s Eduard’s view, I’ll let him answer. > The draft is not like that, all existing ASN and IP addresses can be reused > in every new realm, and there does not need to be any mapping. If people > find a need or a reason to add constraints, that’s beyond me at this time, > and against the natural philosophy of minimizing interdependences to > maintain design freedom in each realm. The draft has one and one only > dependency, that surface of the shaft is common to all realms. > > > > To your point, and unrelated to ASNs, the shaft can be physically > distributed. Each physical place would announce 240.0.0.0/6, and the > nearest alive would attract the traffic. See it as as many IXPs. In the > current draft, there’s only one shaft that links all realms. And there’s a > single realm number for each realm that is advertised in every physical > instances of the shaft. All that is a simplification to highlight the > design. > > > > As the shaft lives on, a realm may be multihomed, the shaft might be > subnetted to interconnect only specific realms, or to be advertised > differently in different geographies. And then the subnets will need to be > injected in the realms. The way around a breakage can be DNS, or BGP. > > > > All this is possible, you’ve already done it, and it’s really your play. > We build the car, you drive it. Happy that you start figuring out how you > prefer it to happen. While we figure out protocols to renumber more > efficiently, fix source address selection, extend the NATs, you name it. > There’s work for all and at every phase. But at this stage of the > discussion, I favor the 10 miles view to get a shared basic understanding. > > > > On the side, I’d be happy to learn how you solved a situation like the one > below, if there’s any article / doc? > > > > Keep safe; > > > > Pascal > > > > *From:* Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com> > *Sent:* mardi 5 avril 2022 0:29 > *To:* Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> > *Cc:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com>; Nicholas Warren < > nwar...@barryelectric.com>; Abraham Y. Chen <ayc...@avinta.com>; Justin > Streiner <strein...@gmail.com>; NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > *Subject:* Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported > re: 202203261833.AYC > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:41 AM Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG < > nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > 240.0.01.1 address is appointed not to the router. It is appointed to > Realm. > It is up to the realm owner (ISP to Enterprise) what particular router (or > routers) would do translation between realms. > > > > Please forgive me as I work this out in my head for a moment. > > > > If I'm a global network with a single ASN on every populated continent > > on the planet, this means I would have a single Realm address; for > > the sake of the example, let's suppose I'm ASN 42, so my Realm > > address is 240.0.0.42. I have 200+ BGP speaking routers at > > exchange points all over the planet where I exchange traffic with > > other networks. > > > > In this new model, every border router I have would all use the > > same 240.0.0.42 address in the Shaft, and other Realms would > > simply hand traffic to the nearest border router of mine, essentially > > following a simple Anycast model where the nearest instance of the > > Realm address is the one that traffic is handed to, with no way to do > > traffic engineering from continent to continent? > > > > Or is there some mechanism whereby different instances of 240.0.0.42 > > can announce different policies into the Shaft to direct traffic more > > appropriately that I'm not understanding from the discussion? > > > > Because if it's one big exercise in enforced Hot Potato Routing with > > a single global announcement of your reachability... > > > > ...that's gonna fail big-time the first time there's a major undersea > > quake in the Strait of Taiwan, which cuts 7/8ths of the trans-pacific > > connectivity off, and suddenly you've got the same Realm address > > being advertised in the US as in Asia, but with no underlying connectivity > > between them. > > > > > https://www.submarinenetworks.com/news/cables-cut-after-taiwan-earthquake-2006 > > > > We who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...badly. :( > > > > Matt > > >
