North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
On 10-Sep-2005, at 21:42, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: It'll only continue to fail (for this reason) as long as the various RIR memberships don't vote for change.On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:Yes, according to the current RIR policies. [So the determination of "unworthy" above has been made, in effect, by RIR members.] [...] It doesn't need to a foregone conclusion; it just needs to have significantly non-zero probability, since if it turns out to be true then we're all screwed.2. Because there is vastly more v6 space than v4 space, if entitlement to PI space in v6 was opened up the chances are many more people would have v6 PI space than currently have v4 PI space. Right now there are lots of multi-homed organisations who use NAT, and whose "PI" address space deployed internally comes from RFC1918. If you imagine all those enterprises using a globally-unique, PI v6 block instead, then perhaps the thinking behind the speculation in (2) above becomes clearer. [ObCheese: most of the 450 or so kinds of cheese made in Switzerland don't have holes.] Ignoring the problems with #2, what is made of the idea that each AS might only have a single block, since blocks are so much larger? (And lots of other questions I'm sure you guys have already covered which are probably not on-topic for NANOG.)This is an RIR policy issue, not an IETF protocol issue. If the members of RIRs all pushed for the idea that "I have a globally- unique ASN" is also appropriate justification for a /32 allocation, then I would imagine that the policy might change. It's possible that the number of PI assignments might not be that high, and the scaling properties in practice might not be so bad. However, you only get to find this out after you've opened the floodgates, and if it turns out that it doesn't scale, it's hard to push the water back into the reservoir. Perhaps. This will surely become clear with the benefit of hindsight :-) Joe
|