[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments

[Lea Roberts]

David, Randy (et al) -0-

I too would like to continue to live the original fantasy of IPv6 where
one could renumber at will and multihome by connecting to as many
providers as you were willing to pay.  However, looking at the current
"operational experience" of which I am aware, neither of those
deliverables has yet become real.  Are you aware otherwise?

I do understand that there may come a day when the DFZ will only be able
to contain the maximum aggregation prefixes, but hopefully before then
some real multihoming option will exist.  Until then, the IPv4 equivalent
technique, announcing the more specific prefix, will likely continue, so
whether it is PI or PA, it's still a RIB slot. (yeah, I know the more
specifics can be filtered at a distance for PA but not PI.  It's still a
long time from that state for IPv6)

Sticking with the "no PI space" mantra for IPv6 in the absence of viable
multihoming and/or easy renumbering is just plain wrong.  We need to come
up with a criteria for PI space that will constrain the recipient pool to
a reasonably small set of large institutions, i.e. those who will be
multi-homing and for whom renumbering would be a major and painful task.
I invite all PPML readers to help us to reach that goal...

					thanks in advance,	 /Lea


On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, David Conrad wrote:

> Ben,
>
> While I understand the position you put forward, if addresses are not
> obtained from providers, then the address prefix will need to appear in
> all default-free routers through which connectivity is desired.  It is,
> of course, true that at this point in time there is plenty of space in
> the "global routing tables", the question is, will that last for the
> lifetime of IPv6?
>
> Many people feel it would be wise to learn from previous mistakes.
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
>
> On Apr 20, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Benjamin Crawford wrote:
>
> > It is extremely important to realize that
> > organizations, with responsibilities to their
> > customers and shareholders, will not be willing to
> > move forward with IPv6 if their v6 allocations will be
> > tied in to a specific service provider.  This point
> > was made by several representatives at the PPM in
> > Orlando and needs to be given strong consideration.
> > IPv6 acceptance will continue to be prolonged until a
> > time that a policy or technology is put in to place
> > that will not bind an organization to a service
> > provider due to an IPv6 allocation.  At this time, the
> > policy should be supported to help get v6 off of the
> > shelf and accepted by many of the businesses out there
> > who are starting to look at this new protocol.   -Ben Crawford
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>