Hi, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-mei-2007, at 2:50, Sascha Lenz wrote:
Why do we concentrate on "multihoming" now as a requirement for PI-addresses? That's not what "Provider Independent" means to me, even if this is the most likely reason for such a request.
What about those who just want a portable block, no renumbering?
Why am I even bothering!?
The IETF spent 5 years getting scalable multihoming off the ground. Then the operator community / RIR policy makers decided shim6 wasn't good enough before it was even finished and we need PI in IPv6 for multihoming just like in IPv4. That was a bad decision at the wrong time and we'll live to regret it, but it won't kill the IPv6 internet in the immediate future.
But now we should go back to the good old days before the invention of CIDR where everyone gets a portable address block, no questions asked? Unlike IPv6 PI for multihoming this will be enough to kill IPv6 really fast if it comes into wide use, just like it almost killed IPv4 in the early 1990s.
Come one, others here also *WERE* there back in the classful times, and screamed "we need a change!!" when their Cisco 3640s hit the end of their usefulnes - heck, even i supported the shim6 (or similiar) development. It's not only you that recognized that problem and started to fear the possible outcome, but you haven't realized that times are changing yet. I don't see any routing table problem for the forseeable future, you have plenty of time to come up with a new, scalable solution and start to deploy it. I still *DO* support *ANYTHING* that keeps the global internet routing tables small and shiny, i really do, but not to that extent that i render the Internet/IPv6 completely useless and "racist" by not allowing IPv6 provider independence. This is real-life internet free market economy nowerdays, deal with it. - I will explain to customers that renumbering is not a big deal if it really isn't in their cases - I will explain to customers that there are other possibilities for multihoming right now and see if that works for them first - I will use any possible other new solution to the problem ("shim6") if it fits the customers needs in the future - I will urge any customer to become a RIR member and explain all advantages of that to them - I will not solicit the usage of PI vs. PA or anything - I will not pass any PI requests or similar from customers if i'm not convinced that they really need it and know what they do but i will NOT deny anyone a routing-table slot just because of their size or monetary issues. So, please, continue with your quest for a better solution, i will appreciate it and bring it to use whereever applicable. P.S.: Anyone got any recent numbers about the percentage of PI announcements in the table vs. PA announcements + deaggregates? -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================