[ppml] Policy without consensus?

[Christopher Morrow]

On 1/24/06, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com <Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com> wrote:
> > so do you gentlemen believe that we should allow unlimited allocation of
> > IPv6 PI space to whomever wants to multihome and just consider the
> > possible routing table scaling problems to be something that will be
> > dealt with later?
>
> Unless someone presents QUANTITATIVE information demonstrating
> a real route scaling problem then I do not believe that there
> is such a problem.

have you asked a vendor how they plan on scalling to 1M routes in
their FIB? what about  2M or 20M ? Generally the answer is 'we dont,
cause we cant'... or something equally lame. There is a problem, stop
ignoring it. (or rather, there is a problem if you keep doing ipv6
like you do ipv4 as far as 'routing' is concerned)

>
> Let us not forget that IPv6 route table scaling is
> NOT THE SAME AS IPV4 route table scaling. It is a completely
> different problem. For one thing, very few ASes will need more
> than a single IPv6 allocation. For another thing, there is

I don't believe this is the case, every org (ASN) has the potential to
require some traffic engineering capabilities. Many org may grow
beyond their initial numebring plan (and require a 'costly' renumber
or a new allocation). Many orgs (ASN) will be subsumed as businesses
consolidate/merge/partner and thus announce more than one IPv6 block
per ASN.

> a way out for organizations that feel pain. They can use IPv4
> instead. This is an option that did not exist in the IPv4
> Internet.

They can use ipv4... for resources that might only have v6
connectivity? or are you assuming that all things 'important' will
have both by default?