[c-nsp] MPLS/VPN + Internet Setup - Update

[Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)]

Tim Franklin <mailto:tim at colt.net> wrote on Friday, August 04, 2006 5:54
PM:

>> My initial plans were to assign PE-CE link IP addresses from the
>> customer address range. The draft mentions similar cons I'd
>> considered. But even though we do not route RFC 1918 addresses
>> within our (global IP) core, I foresee co-ordination issues
>> between the customers and ourselves, which could get worse as the
>> product grows. 
>> 
>> The use of public IP addresses seems to be *the hard choice*
>> between evils :). Too bad the draft didn't make it.
> 
> Unfortunately it hurts whichever way you do it :(
> 
> Use public addresses, and you do the "wrong thing" for the good of the
> Internet community at large in terms of address conservation, and
> have the joys of justifying yourself to your
> provider-of-address-space.  (RIPE in your case, I guess.)
> 
> Use private addresses, and you can easily guarantee they're unique
> within your organisation, but you *will* get clashes with customers,
> and they will not be happy.  It's possible to build both engineering
> and process around it, but it's a not a whole lot of fun.

this was exactly the reason why a new IANA allocation for this would
have helped so much (did you check the draft?). It would be unique
within a network, but not routed in the Internet (so just like RFC1918)
so every MPLS-VPN provider could use the very same range for their PE-CE
links (and the only thing to worry about would be when two MPLS-VPN
providers would interact using CsC or Inter-AS)..

	oli