28 Jul
2021
28 Jul
'21
2:15 p.m.
On 7/28/21 20:01, Rob PE1CHL via 44Net wrote:
On 7/28/21 8:42 PM, Tim Požar via 44Net wrote:
Ok, you've answered my question before I even got to send my last email,
apologies.
That sounds much more interesting, it may still require renumbering on
my (and my users parts), but we all would have a much more flexible
system in place long term.
I'm sure I could find resources to assist with making that happen as I
work in a third level institution with pretty decent network bandwidth
and compute resources available.
Regards
John
EI7IG
BGP on the public Internet requires that you:
* Have an ASN
* Have address space that is a /24 or larger that you can announce
* Typically, have two peers or more you can announce to.
* Have the gear/software that announce the space
* Have some previous experience so you are not just experimenting with your deployment
* Meet your peer's requirements (eg 24 hour NOC, show up at a peering location,
etc.)
* Have the skill set to execute all of the above
This will be a large hurdle for most folks.
That is why it was suggested that the
TAC would design a backbone network. consisting of routers
in datacenters all over the world, interconnected by tunnels, and accepting various kinds
of
VPN connections from users. These routers would advertise the network on BGP (either
local subnets like /16 or the entire /9+/10) in several places around the world, and thus
relieve
the individual amateurs from the chores mentioned above.
And, at the same time, allow the allocation of smaller subnets to users (sharing a larger
allocation
between them), facilitate the routing of net-44 space between regions of the world, etc.
Users would have the choice of using a simple standard VPN tunnel to route just their
network
to/from a nearby backbone PoP, or to make multiple tunnels and run a dynamic routing
protocol
when they are interested in that. That would then be BGP on private AS number and
peering
only with a couple of PoPs from that backbone network, so you can announce smaller
subnets
and do not require the heavy gear required to do internet BGP.
And this network would know which subnets are "intranet", which are "BGP
announced" and
which have special routing needs. So the proposal that is now being discussed would not
be
necessary at all. Of course users would still have the option to make
direct links to other users, or to announce
space on internet BGP directly.
But instead, the TAC came up with a renumbering plan to cover a special case and which is
not
even part of a solution.
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net