On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:21 PM, [email protected] wrote: > On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:01:32 PDT, Owen DeLong said: >> On Nov 3, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> Actually PI is WORSE if you can't get it routed as it requires NAT or >>> it requires MANUAL configuration of the address selection rules to be >>> used with PA. > >> It's very easy to get PIv6 routed for free, so, I don't see the issue there. > > It may be very easy to get it routed for free *now*. > > Will it be possible to get PIv6 routed for free once there's 300K entries in > the IPv6 routing table? Or zillions, as everybody and their pet llama start > using PI prefixes? (Hey, if you managed to get PI to use instead of using an > ULA, and routing it is "free", may as well go for it, right?) > Hopefully by the time it gets to that point we'll have finally come up with a scaleable routing paradigm. Certainly we need to do that anyway. I'm not sure why we chose not to do that with IPv6 in the first place.
Owen
