[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

[Seth Mattinen]

David Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 06:30:22PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
>> Since IPv6 uses the same  
>> routing and traffic engineering technology as IPv4, I am curious what  
>> constraints could be put in place to keep PI space down to about 1  
>> per ASN.  Particularly given PI allocation policies either have been  
>> or are being liberalized in all the RIRs (for sound economic and  
>> business reasons, at least from the perspective of the Internet end  
>> users).
> 
> I don't understand why you single out PI holders in this.  I'm
> wondering how many ASNs now advertise more than 2 PI prefixes...I know
> that the six ASNs I have some control over have single PI chunks
> assigned to them.  I have an association with another org that has two
> PI announcements from a single AS, primarily because one of them is
> from the class C swamp.
> 
> I suspect that PA holders are just as guilty of deaggregation.  Outside
> of TE or simple sloppiness, there's been a lot of business activity
> that leads to a lot of mergers and associated extra announcements.
> 

When I was forced to use PA space (because I didn't qualify for PI space 
at the time) I didn't have any choice but to announce all my /24's 
individually. Now that I finally have PI space I have the ability to 
announce one prefix once I finish renumbering. It's not my fault, the 
rules made me announce extra cruft into the routing table even though I 
knew better.

I'd say multihoming PA holders are more likely to deaggregate because 
they're forced to pick up and announce random /24's here and there until 
they can get PI space.

~Seth