[ppml] Fw: IRS goes IPv6!
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 14:00 +0000, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
> > In other words, ARIN should
> > not adopt a policy in which users assume they are getting a routable
> > address block, when in fact, there is a real possibility that it will
> > not be routable in the future.
> Routability is not a feature that ARIN includes with address
> blocks today. [..]
No RIR guarantees routability. RIPE at least has a beacon project to
give it a try, but none of them guarantee anything.
> If I understand the substance of the routability argument, it
> is that if ARIN gives out lots of small IPv6 PI allocations then
> each one of these allocations will use up a routing table slot.
> At some point in time, too many slots will be used up and ISPs
> will be forced to remove the ROUTABILITY feature for many of these
That is indeed the substance.
To solve this 'easy' and sort of future-proof, having a special /16 or
similar where /48's to end-sites can be allocated from for routing or
non-routable purposes already solves the problem. When there are too
many routing slots this /16 can be filtered out by ISP's who don't want
to see it, the only thing is that the end site (and it's peers) will
have to start using something like shim6 then to overcome this...
> I suggest that the ARIN region be divided as follows
The big problem with geo-addressing (which is more or less what you mean
here) is the big question: Who pays for what traffic and when. Next to
that people tend to want to do traffic engineering and other tricks
which are not easily applicable to Geo PI setups.
Also see Tony Hain's document about Geo PI (draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-*).
PS: Micheal, could you keep attribution for replies you make to people
that would make following the thread much easier instead having to look
up who actually said what on what you are replying to.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part