Margaret, > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > Actually, this is quite tricky... > [snip]
I generally agree with the analysis you posted. > Choices seem to be: > (A) Continue with PA addressing, and accept that enterprises > will use IPv6 NAT to get provider-independence. > (B) Allocate PI addresses, and trust that we can determine a > scalable PI routing scheme before we hit route scaling > issues in the IPv6 backbone. > So, I would make an informed decision to pursue choice (B), > in full knowledge that it might create a route scaling issue > further down the road. I will point out that you will never be able to clean out PI addresses after they have been allocated. Furthermore, giving PI addresses will inevitably trigger a land rush as they will always be more convenient that any ID/LOC scheme we might come up with; anyone will want one. Contrary to IPv4 size will not matter for most. If we go the (B) road we'll end up with a large number of /48s in the global routing table, which is definitely *NOT* what the design of IPv6 is. > So, I would make an informed decision to pursue choice (B) This is not the time for a post-mortem choice yet. We still have some time. Not much, but some. The current course of action of the IETF is: (C) Put my head in the sand and pretend that the problem is not urgent. I would like to see a more positive attitude here. The battle is not lost yet and there are things that can be done before we relunctantly go the (B) way. If we go the (B) way now, there is no more way back than there is with NAT. ==> (C) Finally do something about IPv6 multihoming. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
