On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > because: > 1) there were only going to be a limited number of ISP's > b) every end site gets PA only > iii) no need for pi > d) all of the above
I understand how they rationalized the cop-out. Now, getting back to the real world... Owen
