No. But I fail to see what we gain with creating a special block from where we assign PI addresses. The RIRs can equally well assign PI space from the current IPv6 unicast space. Sure, this will lead to growth in the size of the DFZ, but that is a routing problem.
I think we're arguing the same side here...
Agreed.
I don't care what we call it...
I don't think that this business requires more abreviation inflation....:)
I read your draft on multi6 regarding "longer prefix" multihoming, and wasYou where not at the rebellion/ad-hoc/let's get out of here and go for bee multi6 meeting on Thursday in Atlanta. What I (and I think Thomas) said, was that we simply don't know this yet. With ~250 non 6bone routes in the DFZ we can't really tel� if this is a scaling problem or not. When I configured my first BGP router we had just hit above 25k routes and people where telling me this was the end. I see a problem, but not for v6, and not now. We have no idea of how popular multihoming will be or what the impacts of cost etc will be.
surprised to see your assertion regarding how far we are from having a
route scaling problem in IPv6...
Maybe every mobile device will be multihomed, maybe the costs are to high? No one knows. We nee more data and experience.
One thing I have been think of. Do we know what the increased prefix-length does to implementations and the effect on convergence times? What I would like to do is have someone load a bunch of routers up with the current 130k routes but with a prefix length of 128n bits, what happens? What is the cost?
In the cast above - no. But with 250 routes I am more worried about IPv6 not happening at all than us running out of scaling. You still have the dinner at stake with me. I guess that we will have (with good margin) a better understanding of the problem and the solutions in advance to a real scaling problem.
But, do you really think that we will continue to have fairly small routing
tables if we allow every enterprise (and home?) to get its own portable
address allocation? Or would we need to come up with some way to
assign these addresses in an aggregable manner.
Are you proposing a particular mechanism that would allow aggregation of
PI address allocations?
Not in the draft I have worked on now. In futuer? Yes, we will need a solution to the scaling problem, but that needs to be achieved with a routing solutions as well as perhaps a solution to addresses.
Without a question! But now we need to but time and deployment more than anything else.True, but it would cause IPv6 routing table growth... Do you have an answer for that?
- kurtis -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
