Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 08:26:52AM +1300: > On 2007-12-04 06:09, Scott Brim wrote: >> So it's let's-have-fun-with-rhetoric day, eh? We got here because of >> the rate*state problems, of which PI allocations are a small part. >> Once we got here, we discovered that we potentially had the freedom to >> abandon the dogma that you are clinging to. (At this point I believe >> you're supposed to say "I find your lack of faith disturbing"). > > Oh, I do, certainly ;-) > > However, my point was not intended as rhetoric. The reason we designed > IPv6 for multiple prefixes per site was precisely to avoid the problem > that IPv4 faced pre-CIDR. The emergence of PI allocations and BGP4-based > multihoming for a large number of IPv6 sites would recreate that problem. > It hasn't happened yet because we don't *have* a large number of IPv6 > sites yet. But if we can't get people used to the idea of multiple > prefixes per site, we *will* have the problem, and I thought that > was the main reason we're here - to keep the number of prefixes that > the core has to route down to a manageable number, even if sites > stick to the old notion of one prefix per site.
Yes but we don't need to push provider-allocation to do so if we have a map&encap mechanism in place. I don't know what the future allocation mechanism will be -- it could be provider-based, and for many sites that will work best -- but it need not be. My concern was that you seemed to be saying that we had to stay with PA. swb -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
