On 2008-11-25 07:07, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: "Tony Li" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >>> I thought the standard model for IPv6 was to assign sites a PI /48? > > >> No, that's the standard heresy. The standard model has always been > >> multiple PA's. > > > It seems that the IAB then needs to have a chat with the RIR's then. > > I think that horse escaped rather a long time ago, alas.
Indeed. Actually it escaped via RFC 1881 (December 1995), and it was intentional. I personally believe that the registries have made it too easy to get PI prefixes, but that was a choice of the operational community. However, it doesn't change what I was trying to say, which is that the *design* assumption for IPv6 was PA, so it seems appropriate to call that Plan A. Brian > If the RIR's were > willing to think they were able to make routing engineering decisions, I > doubt very much they'd be willing to reverse course because the IAB told them > to. > > The irony here is that the adoption of PI was seen as 'necessary' to drive > the adoption of IPv6. As some of us pointed out at the time, it would in fact > likely have the _opposite_ impact, by making the routing overhead of IPv6 > even higher for the ISPs. > > I think the old Benjamin Franklin quote about experience applies here as to > so many other aspects of IPv6. > > Noel > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
