|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
Hay, Daniel Roesen wrote: [...] ...not only you...Personally, I just wait for people to realize that they won't be able to force people into provider lock-in, allow one PI prefix per AS and THEN things can go off. With that, the global IPv6 table would be around 18k routes btw. As IPv4 and ASN are virtually unrestricted available today, I don't suspect any bigger growth rates in IPv6 land for ASNs and prefixes than in the IPv4 land. As such, I fail to see the problem with PI for IPv6 for a long long time to come. But that's just me silly. :-) "Lower your filters, Resistance is futile. You will be flooded with /48s" :-> No, i mean, this issue/discussion is several years old now. I haven't seen any movement in either direction - pro or contra IPv6-PI (or less strict IPv6-BGP filters to be correct) throughout the last years. There are many good reasons why it's simply a matter of fact, that even if you start IPv6-PI now, the IPv6-BGP tables won't reach the currernt IPv4 size for the whole lifetime of IPv6, let alone that you always have to carry around the IPv4 tables for a loooooooooooong time anyways, not to mention that current routers are already fast enough and have enough RAM for decades to come anyways (yes, "640k is enough for anyone" :-). This is simply stuck and one of the more important issues, why IPv6 doesn't work out yet (like you said, "It's less useful than IPv4"). Believe it or not, there's a real world outside. We might not like it from a technical point of view, but we build networks for "them" to use it, so I don't even see the point about refusing IPv6-PI by anyone who wants to push IPv6-deployment. But anyways, this thread is about something different, about RfC1918-equivalents. This shouldn't be mixed up in first place, but I don't really like the idea of private IPv6 Network range either, because it means there will be IPv6-NAT with all the problems that NAT might cause, but there really might be SOME people who want to have it just like that. Same thing as above... if people just LOVE RfC1918 and NAT, they might not want to have IPv6 because "it doesn't work with that". Again, believe it or not, the majority of people and even network-admins out there don't really care if a solution is "the best for the community" or "the best from a scientific point of view", they just want it to be simple and working. ...and i always thought that IPv6 was build to be "simple and working". Sure, nice to have multi6 and new ideas, but i don't see them beingAnd yes, I read multi6 WG. implemented and useful until 2015 or so (no offencement, people of multi6 :-) Note: I don't say that new multihoming solutions are a wast of time, au contrair... but they _all_ won't replace the current (BGP-/PI-)multihoming solution in every case. -- ======================================================================== = Sascha 'master' Lenz SLZ-RIPE [email protected] = = NOC BayCIX GmbH = = http://www.noc.baycix.de/ * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
|