I think targeting BGP advertising for /16 subnets would be a good benchmark. That would mean less than 256 entries for core routers. (Fewer if some were combined.)
Each of the /16 subnets should have a competent router in a data center with bandwidth, backup power, etc. and some agreement for continuity.
Anyone wishing to sponsor/administer one of these "Tier 1" routers should demonstrate:
- Financial viability to keep it up and running for an extended and indefinite period. This could include a MOU of donated bandwidth, underwriting by some entity, and/or pledges of financial support.
- A capable router (with a spare) or routers. We could specify reference hardware/software.
- For example, I would suggest something like http://routerboard.com/pdf/348/RB1100AH.pdf
- Up to 3 Gbit/Sec aggregate throughput,
- Multiple Ethernet ports for bonding / failover / dedicated management LAN, etc.
- MPLS (bypass regular routing for identified traffic)
- Unlimited (except by memory/tablespace) VPN tunnels (IPIP, PPTP, LT2P, OpenVPN, ...)
- IPv4/IPv6 capabilities
- Committed, primary and backup administrators with competence in IP Network administration and design.
- Ownership of the router(s) should probably be held by an organization (Non Profit?) for continuity, which has a charter, bylaws, and procedures to insure continuity as volunteers accept or resign responsibilities.
Much of the motivation for Net-44 is related to Emergency Communications support (at least in North America) so you want these "Tier 1" routers to be "hardened" as much as possible.
The "Tier 1" routers should be closely aligned with a network manager (who is also the address administrator for the associated /16 subnet). The network manager would work with any "Tier 2" router managers (LANs, etc.) to build out further subnets and routes within the /16 subnet.
Each /16 subnet also needs other services, such as DNS services (including delegated sub domain / dynamic DNS), online application for address space, management, and reporting.
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 13:09, Brian Kantor
<Brian@ucsd.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:37:24PM -0800, Tim Osburn wrote:
> Brian and All,
> I always thought it was a waste of a routable /8 to not have it
> routed on the Internet, otherwise why are people just not using IANA
> space instead? However, if it is to be routed on the internet I think
> some ground rules must be established of what is and is not
> acceptable and penalties for not following the rules and established
> guidelines.
I imagine we'll have to have rules and some sort of binding agreement/contract.
> Additionally, and I bring this up again, a RWHOIS server should/must
> be used (tied in with ARIN on the 44/8 allocation) so that people can
> query specific address space that will return the contact/owner of
> whatever space is being advertised for whatever reason. Additionally,
> IRR entries should also be required for anyone wanting to advertise
> space via BGP. Those should be some common sence polices that need to
> be followed at the very minimum.
Yes, we'd have to do that, and that brings up the issue of who is to
do this - I'm willing but I'm running out of time to do these sorts
of things. We're going to need volunteers to run the rwhois server,
to keep the data up to date, to update the IRR entries, and so on.
This is going to be a big commitment if we decide to do it. In an all
volunteer organization, how will we do what needs to be done?
