Patrick, I think you bring up a very important issue. On 20/03/2008 18:30, "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick@vande-walle.eu> wrote: [...]
I would support a proposal that would allow RIPE to give out IPv6 PI space to those Inetnum holders who specifically request it, no questions asked.
Right now, the policy for receiving an IPv4 PI assignment is that you get as many addresses as you can show that you need. So if you needed 25 addresses you'd get a /27 as that's the closest prefix length to your need. That's unlikely to get routed very far, though. The likely affect of this policy is some (but not much) pushback on people requesting PI space. They might accept a PA assignment from their ISP, saving everyone else from carrying an extra route. Alternatively, they might just lie. But the "one size fits all" approach of IPv6 doesn't provide any pushback. It is possible the demand for PI space would be very much higher if there were no difference between the size of networks assigned from the ISP's aggregate and the RIR. And then you write:
I do not buy the argument that it should be rejected because this would fill up the routing tables. If the Cogent/Telia ongoing dispute is any indication, even the SOHO's will soon need to multihome if they want global connectivity. So, unless we want to repeat the NAT scenario we currently have in homes and small offices, PI space seems necessary and will develop further.The router industry will need to come up with faster hardware.
Adding to what David says, additional routes and the extra cost they add could raise the barrier to entry for ISPs and encourage consolidation in the marketplace. That might result in reduced consumer choice. Not fun. Leo