|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
> >... all oldtimers are skewed. ... > Here is a possible multi level solution for end sites and non /32 > qualifiers: > ... > - Sites that multihome 4 ways or more get a PI /40 > - Large sites with more than X devices get a PI /40 if at least > (dual|triple)homed to avoid massive renumbering/provider lock-in. > > This would set the bar high enough to limit routing table growth while > allocating PI space to those who need it the most. there are problems with this approach, having to do with the definition of multihoming, and with the possibility of someone claiming to qualify for PI space even though their "providers" are actually "related parties". there is room for huge graft and corruption unless the definition is very careful and there's a budget for both initial and recurring audits. then there's the problem of falling out of qualification some time after a large network has been built. so while i don't disagree that multihoming appears to be a justification for PI space, i'm not sure all the wrinkles can be ironed out. more importantly though is your /40 example. ipv6 has enough address space in it to be able to give a /32 to every household on the planet, including a reserve for the ones without electric power or phones. giving out /40's makes no sense. what the world is short of is routing table slots, each of which adds universal cost to the internet for the sole benefit of the owner of the network thus made reachable. there's ram, cpu, churn... the works. when or if an endsystem PI policy is defined, it should not call for shorter prefixes, but rather, for making it really quite rare in a global sense for anyone to actually qualify for it. if the ipv6 routing table ever gets as large as the ipv4 routing table is today (late 2004 if you're going to quote me later), we'll be in deep doo. -- Paul Vixie
|