ISP Portability (from Number portability)
Hey Skunks I was thinking of the poor service sometimes from the ISP's, so I was wondering would it be possible to venture into the above i.e. ISP portability? In this case an ISP frustrates you and you move. The logistics have to be thot though! Just a thot! -- Conservatism is the adherence to the old tried against the new untried.
On 4/20/11 2:22 PM, TheMburu George wrote:
Hey Skunks
I was thinking of the poor service sometimes from the ISP's, so I was wondering would it be possible to venture into the above i.e. ISP portability? In this case an ISP frustrates you and you move. The logistics have to be thot though!
You get your own Provider Independent (PI) IP address space, an Autonomous System Number (ASN). Use BGP to connect to your upstream and can move whenever you feel the urge to. Happens all the time and you can have two providers (multi-homed network) so that you can determine which one is primary for the day and which one is back for the day. Regards, Mich.
On 20 April 2011 14:35, Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com> wrote:
You get your own Provider Independent (PI) IP address space, an Autonomous System Number (ASN). Use BGP to connect to your upstream and can move whenever you feel the urge to.
PI address space only works for organizations that have the ability to justify an allocation from any of the internet registries. The answer to portability has been in existence from the early days of the internet. DNS............ -- *./ TJ*
On 4/20/11 2:41 PM, TJ wrote:
PI address space only works for organizations that have the ability to justify an allocation from any of the internet registries.
The answer to portability has been in existence from the early days of the internet. DNS............
DNS is not = ISP Freedom. Regards, Michuki.
Michuki, I think you are limited to the current implementation technology thus u mention in the lines of AS numbers and the likes. But remember a need is the one that leads to cutting edge tweaks and hacks to deliver solutions. I understand the current limitation is the AS numbers, but isnt that similar to the prefix in a mobile number? Considering IPv6 and the AS numbers, I can say the reason we need AS numbers is because BGP requires them. Just the curiosity and the thots! Regards George On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com>wrote:
On 4/20/11 2:41 PM, TJ wrote:
PI address space only works for organizations that have the ability to justify an allocation from any of the internet registries.
The answer to portability has been in existence from the early days of the internet. DNS............
DNS is not = ISP Freedom.
Regards,
Michuki. _______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------ Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- Conservatism is the adherence to the old tried against the new untried.
On 20 April 2011 18:35, TheMburu George <themburu@gmail.com> wrote:
Michuki,
I think you are limited to the current implementation technology thus u mention in the lines of AS numbers and the likes. But remember a need is the one that leads to cutting edge tweaks and hacks to deliver solutions. I understand the current limitation is the AS numbers, but isnt that similar to the prefix in a mobile number? Considering IPv6 and the AS numbers, I can say the reason we need AS numbers is because BGP requires them.
Just the curiosity and the thots!
Not sure what you mean by moving from one ISP to another BUT you should note that probably most of the issues that happen do not originate with ISP itself but by the larger network like inflactructure etc. At the same time could be other issues.
Regards
George
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com>wrote:
On 4/20/11 2:41 PM, TJ wrote:
PI address space only works for organizations that have the ability to justify an allocation from any of the internet registries.
The answer to portability has been in existence from the early days of the internet. DNS............
DNS is not = ISP Freedom.
The solution is .
Option 1: Having your BGP/ASNQuite feasible and easy. You can step out at will and move anywhere with your "package". If this is far fetched, use vpn tunnels to any provider in the world, and route what you need. EG you can use UK/USA ips in KE. The tunnel is a short cut because all you need is update your tunnel parameters everytime you move from isp x to y - but am not sure if its allowed/legal in Kenya - *Michuki advise.* Option 2: get dns names for every server/host that is key to your network - manage dns outside your mobile IP network. This will allow you to change IPs at will but allowing some time for propagation. may be cumbersome though especially dealing with reverse lookups-must involve your ISP. PTR-You have control of. Option 3: Co-locate core services that might require/need close to 100% uptimen in data centres. Wilson.
Regards,
Michuki. _______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------ Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
-- Conservatism is the adherence to the old tried against the new untried.
_______________________________________________ Skunkworks mailing list Skunkworks@lists.my.co.ke http://lists.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/skunkworks ------------ Skunkworks Rules http://my.co.ke/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=94 ------------ Other services @ http://my.co.ke
George, On 4/20/11 6:35 PM, TheMburu George wrote:
Michuki,
I think you are limited to the current implementation technology thus u mention in the lines of AS numbers and the likes.
Please define the limitations that you referring to. But remember a need is
the one that leads to cutting edge tweaks and hacks to deliver solutions.
Are you talking about LISP?
I understand the current limitation is the AS numbers,
What limitations are you referring to specifically? but isnt that
similar to the prefix in a mobile number?
Am sorry but the Mobile number is not equal to an ASN. Maybe the Country code and area code can be somewhat similar in analogy to an ASN but thats not a ideal analogy to use either. Considering IPv6 and the AS
numbers, I can say the reason we need AS numbers is because BGP requires them.
Am not sure i fully understand what you directing to. Its like saying the reason we need country codes is because its required by SIP or H323 or SS7 ... makes sense? Regards, Michuki.
Hey Michuki n Thuo This is what I mean: ASN identifies the end route or destination to a network, more precisely it means that the IP address in question resides within the bloack of the ASN (so was mobile prefix originally i.e 072* would identify a block within the Queen Bee) but that a line of thot. Back to my idea, we have two blocks of IP Private and Public which are routable. Taking you to IS-IS routing protocol which was originally created for OSI protocol and later tweaked for TCP/IP and so is OSPF which required tweaking. If we approach this analogy can we then say a possible way to approach this is to have floating IP Block i.e. not within Private or Public which you can use to create adjancencies with any provider you choose to use then we can tweak how you associate to the new providers AS block or something like that. Note: I'm not talking of multi-homing but a user somewhere who gets poor services and would like to kuhama from ISP. ./TheMburu On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki@swiftkenya.com>wrote:
George,
On 4/20/11 6:35 PM, TheMburu George wrote:
Michuki,
I think you are limited to the current implementation technology thus u mention in the lines of AS numbers and the likes.
Please define the limitations that you referring to.
But remember a need is
the one that leads to cutting edge tweaks and hacks to deliver solutions.
Are you talking about LISP?
I understand the current limitation is the AS numbers,
What limitations are you referring to specifically?
but isnt that
similar to the prefix in a mobile number?
Am sorry but the Mobile number is not equal to an ASN. Maybe the Country code and area code can be somewhat similar in analogy to an ASN but thats not a ideal analogy to use either.
Considering IPv6 and the AS
numbers, I can say the reason we need AS numbers is because BGP requires them.
Am not sure i fully understand what you directing to. Its like saying the reason we need country codes is because its required by SIP or H323 or SS7 ... makes sense?
Regards,
Michuki.
-- Conservatism is the adherence to the old tried against the new untried.
On 4/26/11 9:27 AM, TheMburu George wrote:
Hey Michuki n Thuo
This is what I mean: ASN identifies the end route or destination to a network, more precisely it means that the IP address in question resides within the bloack of the ASN (so was mobile prefix originally i.e 072* would identify a block within the Queen Bee) but that a line of thot.
You may want to read RFC's 1771 and 1930 - your definition of an ASN is somewhat not true. But in its simplicity ASN denotes a network under a single control with common routing policy. In many instances today some networks have their own PI space but use the ISPs ASN (as origin AS). How the Number portability works today is slightly different.
Back to my idea, we have two blocks of IP Private and Public which are routable.
ok.
Taking you to IS-IS routing protocol which was originally created for OSI protocol and later tweaked for TCP/IP and so is OSPF which required tweaking.
Clarifications - OSI is not a protocol but a model. IS-IS is a layer 2 protocol (CLNS = connectionless) OSPF is layer 3 protocol (it depends on IP connectivity) Updates to OSPF i.e OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 have included features of IS-IS i.e working on the interface level though somewhat still dependent on layer 3 connectivity. See the relevant RFC's for updates. Both protocols their distinct differences starting from LSA types, etc. If we approach this analogy can we then say a
possible way to approach this is to have floating IP Block i.e. not within Private or Public which you can use to create adjancencies with any provider you choose to use
To start with - No operator in their right mind will use an IGP with their customers. This protocols were not built with any safety or security in mind (they are fully trusting protocols) as such as an operator your customers network sneezing would give you a bad cold - if you get what i mean. Going ahead - Well if its not Private or Public do you mean creating a new address space just for Point-2-Point interfaces or in other words adjascencies?. If you are proposing either creating an entire address space specifically for this - then this is not necessary since IPv6 already has enough space to cater for such. Each network gets a minmum allocation of /32 that is 65,536 /48 Subnets and each /48 gives 65,536 /64 subnets and each /64 gives you 2^64 Addresses. There's more than necessary. If you are proposing allocating a specific block for adjacency within the existing Ipv4 and IPv6 block then you are likely to bring up the same problems folks have been stuck with with RFC1918 space. Some folks proposed a similar approach to RFC1918 in IPv6 using the Unique Local Address. But this was met with reservations. If you have very specific proposals on how this will work you are welcome to propose the recommendations - this happens at the Routing and Internet Areas of the Internet Engineering Task Force - see http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/. Before doing so its important to try establish that what you want to achieve cannot be accomplished using the existing protocols and if it can be the limitations and how your proposal (called a draft) is going to address the limitations. then we can tweak how you associate to
the new providers AS block or something like that.
In all am not sure how what you are proposing cannot be dealt with using MPLS?. However a unique IP will still be required either way.
Note: I'm not talking of multi-homing but a user somewhere who gets poor services and would like to kuhama from ISP.
The only way a user can move from one ISP to another is if the resources they use (primarily an IP Address) is independent from any ISP. That means the user needs to have their own unique IP address. Which is similar to what Number Portability is - it means your number is yours and does not belong to any operator as was the case in the past. Now for a more interesting development which might be linked to what you are proposing, you may want to read the research work thats going on under the LISP Working Group under the Internet Area. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lisp/charter/ Regards, Michuki.
Hey Michuki I liked your last bit where you advised on the way forward. Remember that this idea is not based on the current limitations of routing protocols but rather possibilities and features that would come in handy since we are fast moving into a unified data village (if I may call it that). This means I was not implying how it will work on IS IS, OSPF or any other protocol but rather how each had to be tweaked to cater for new features, so lets not argue on how they each work. Additionally RFC is simply Request For Comments where standards emerge. I am currently stuck with my ISP at home and I cannot migrate since it requires additional investment on another new infrastructure hence the need can't we advance or create a model where it would be possible to move without needing new infrastructure or even set-up. That is a need which I believe if well looked at by the IETF community and skunks can result to a higher or better features on the routing protocols. Meanwhile lemme look at the sites u recommended. Regards ./TheMburu On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Michuki Mwangi <michuki.mwangi@gmail.com>wrote:
On 4/26/11 9:27 AM, TheMburu George wrote:
Hey Michuki n Thuo
This is what I mean: ASN identifies the end route or destination to a network, more precisely it means that the IP address in question resides within the bloack of the ASN (so was mobile prefix originally i.e 072* would identify a block within the Queen Bee) but that a line of thot.
You may want to read RFC's 1771 and 1930 - your definition of an ASN is somewhat not true. But in its simplicity ASN denotes a network under a single control with common routing policy.
In many instances today some networks have their own PI space but use the ISPs ASN (as origin AS). How the Number portability works today is slightly different.
Back to my idea, we have two blocks of IP Private and Public which are routable.
ok.
Taking you to IS-IS routing protocol which was originally created for OSI protocol and later tweaked for TCP/IP and so is OSPF which required tweaking.
Clarifications - OSI is not a protocol but a model.
IS-IS is a layer 2 protocol (CLNS = connectionless)
OSPF is layer 3 protocol (it depends on IP connectivity)
Updates to OSPF i.e OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 have included features of IS-IS i.e working on the interface level though somewhat still dependent on layer 3 connectivity. See the relevant RFC's for updates.
Both protocols their distinct differences starting from LSA types, etc.
If we approach this analogy can we then say a
possible way to approach this is to have floating IP Block i.e. not within Private or Public which you can use to create adjancencies with any provider you choose to use
To start with - No operator in their right mind will use an IGP with their customers. This protocols were not built with any safety or security in mind (they are fully trusting protocols) as such as an operator your customers network sneezing would give you a bad cold - if you get what i mean.
Going ahead - Well if its not Private or Public do you mean creating a new address space just for Point-2-Point interfaces or in other words adjascencies?.
If you are proposing either creating an entire address space specifically for this - then this is not necessary since IPv6 already has enough space to cater for such. Each network gets a minmum allocation of /32 that is 65,536 /48 Subnets and each /48 gives 65,536 /64 subnets and each /64 gives you 2^64 Addresses. There's more than necessary.
If you are proposing allocating a specific block for adjacency within the existing Ipv4 and IPv6 block then you are likely to bring up the same problems folks have been stuck with with RFC1918 space. Some folks proposed a similar approach to RFC1918 in IPv6 using the Unique Local Address. But this was met with reservations.
If you have very specific proposals on how this will work you are welcome to propose the recommendations - this happens at the Routing and Internet Areas of the Internet Engineering Task Force - see http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/.
Before doing so its important to try establish that what you want to achieve cannot be accomplished using the existing protocols and if it can be the limitations and how your proposal (called a draft) is going to address the limitations.
then we can tweak how you associate to
the new providers AS block or something like that.
In all am not sure how what you are proposing cannot be dealt with using MPLS?. However a unique IP will still be required either way.
Note: I'm not talking of multi-homing but a user somewhere who gets poor services and would like to kuhama from ISP.
The only way a user can move from one ISP to another is if the resources they use (primarily an IP Address) is independent from any ISP. That means the user needs to have their own unique IP address. Which is similar to what Number Portability is - it means your number is yours and does not belong to any operator as was the case in the past.
Now for a more interesting development which might be linked to what you are proposing, you may want to read the research work thats going on under the LISP Working Group under the Internet Area. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lisp/charter/
Regards,
Michuki.
-- Conservatism is the adherence to the old tried against the new untried.
Hi George, On 4/26/11 11:56 AM, TheMburu George wrote:
Hey Michuki
I liked your last bit where you advised on the way forward. Remember that this idea is not based on the current limitations of routing protocols but rather possibilities and features that would come in handy since we are fast moving into a unified data village (if I may call it that). This means I was not implying how it will work on IS IS, OSPF or any other protocol but rather how each had to be tweaked to cater for new features, so lets not argue on how they each work.
Well to start with am not arguing on how they work. In fact am trying to add more value to the discussion by being more specific which you are not. This is a technical mailing list where we have to deal with the technical issues in their full detail. So for instance what you call tweaks are referred to as updates and are as a result of years of engineers spending time developing the standards. Therefore am happy to discuss features and possibilities - but first i would also like to understand a) is this something that can be done in the current setting but with alot of inconvenience b) not possible to achieve in the current setting and would require feature development into the existing protocols.
Additionally RFC is simply Request For Comments where standards emerge.
meaning?
I am currently stuck with my ISP at home and I cannot migrate since it requires additional investment on another new infrastructure hence the need can't we advance or create a model where it would be possible to move without needing new infrastructure or even set-up.
Well you ask a fundamental question. I will build it up; 1) So why is my providers WiMAX CPE not compatible with or supported by another providers network - so everytime i move i have to buy another CPE. Can't i just invest in one WiMAX CPE and move from one provider to another 2) So why is it that if i change a provider in a cabled building i have to pay a setup cost which involves them pulling a new cable to my office - i have afew more cables and i wish i can change provider without pulling in a new cable. My answer to the above - its got nothing to do with Standards - but a business model. Thats why your Toyota parts cannot fit on a Nissan but they are both cars and will take you from point A to B. The internet would not be where it is today if it lacked a business model - its one of its strengths and weakness too.
That is a need which I believe if well looked at by the IETF community and skunks can result to a higher or better features on the routing protocols.
The IETF is an open community - subscribe and contribute to the discussions. I for one would be happy to have a Kenyan co-author a author draft.
Meanwhile lemme look at the sites u recommended.
Cool!, Michuki.
participants (5)
-
Michuki Mwangi -
Michuki Mwangi -
TheMburu George -
Thuo Wilson -
TJ