On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Dan Lanciani wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:55:39 -0400 (EDT) > From: Dan Lanciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: IPv6 Multi-homing BOF at NANOG 35 > [snip] > > IPv6 itself does nothing good for (3). PI allocations may well be available > to some set of entities for a while to ease the transition, but that just > brings us back to routing table concerns. There is no general PI solution > on the horizon, and shim6 may make such a solution less likely to appear. > > Dan Lanciani > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Dan, You clearly state that PI allocations do not help the concern that allowing de-aggregates in the IPv6 routing table could easily scale beyond current hardware limitations. I think this is what you are referring to when you say "There is no general PI solution on the horizon..."
But I want to point out that ARIN does have an IPv6 PI policy proposal on the table for the end of October. This policy does not provide a solution to routing table growth (possibly people believe everyone's hardware will be capable when the time comes that we need it). If the ARIN IPv6 PI policy gets accepted and widely implemented that PI addresses are more likely to be leveraged by large commercial networks who are currently doing traditional IPv4 multi-homing and traffic engineering instead of shim6. This may greatly decrease the support for and use of a shim6 solution. It seems to me that if PI has wide spread adoption then everyone will have to commit to solving the large routing table problem in hardware. If we have already decided to solve the large routing table size in hardware then why do we need shim6? ___Jason -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
