[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1

[Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO]

Folks:
   There has been a lot of discussion recently about provider
independent addressing as the solution to problems of multi-homing, ISP
lock-in, etc.   My concern is that we can't afford to ignore the
potential impact on the size of global Internet routing tables.   If we
take a look at the problems that keep coming up: 

Problem: Multi-homing
In IPv4, multi-advertising (i.e., advertising the same address across
multiple providers) was the answer to the problem.
In IPv6, shouldn't we be thinking of multi-addressing (i.e. multiple
addresses for the same sub-net) as the answer?  ... Granted Shim6 is not
fully baked yet, but that (or something which accomplishes the same
basic goal) is where our creative energies should be focused."

Problem: ISP lock-in
In IPv4, PI was the insurance against "my ISP got run over by a truck".
In IPv6, shouldn't the prudent user (enterprise customer, campus, etc.)
get addresses from all their service providers?

We need to focus some attention on the effect of fragmentation (whether
caused by PI or multi-advertising in general) on the Internet routing
table size.   With the orders of magnitude increases of addresses (IPv6
vs. IPv4) and AS numbers, there is potential for routing table
explosion.   It's our responsibility to prevent that.    Even if
someone's favorite policy goal is not satisfied, addressing policy needs
to be conservative - and biased heavily against the risk of routing
table explosion since we have no data about how IPv6 addressing policies
will impact the Internet over the long term.


Joe Houle


-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Alec H. Peterson
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:04 PM
To: Daniel Golding
Cc: Thomas Narten; PPML
Subject: Re: [ppml] alternative to 2005-1

Hi Dan,

...

Statements like that tell me that we are still thinking in IPv4  
terms.  This is precisely why this discussion is happening, because  
we _need_ to think in non-IPv4 terms.  If we are constrained by how  
things work in the IPv4 world then you are correct.  However, if we  
are constrained by how things work in the IPv4 world then IPv6 will  
not be worth much anyway.

Alec

_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml