[ppml] Policy without consensus?
christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Mon Jan 30 21:47:09 EST 2006
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
> a way out for organizations that feel pain. They can use IPv4
> instead. This is an option that did not exist in the IPv4
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?
More information about the ARIN-PPML