North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Shim6 vs PI addressing

  • From: David Barak
  • Date: Wed Mar 01 12:06:31 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=QETe15GYnzHJi4bXza8hZyDgYYoqrFJgNLhG8tysGTE6LPcSOqbup8LZ6VqviwRFotcca5zt1uqektNH9gKMcCCiIghcqjBjLQ/FgOQnIrgaYQ0w5Qkn/VSNqTaap1H+wRR0CVQoFvyyoNVBP0zgUDmTvkXrbHgMdA+YTvJhXUw= ;

--- Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:22, David Barak wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, the whole reason for these
> > discussions is the insistence on the strict
> > PA-addressing model, with no ability to advertise
> PA
> > space to other providers.
> The whole reason for the strict PA-addressing model
> is concern over  
> whether open-slather on PI address space will result
> in an Internet  
> that will scale.

Is it easier to scale N routers, or scale 10000*N
hosts?  If we simply moved to an "everyone with an ASN
gets a /32" model, we'd have about 30,000 /32s.  It
would be a really long time before we had as many
routes in the table as we do today, let alone the
umpteen-bazillion routes which scare everyone so

> Joe
> (Failing miserably to keep quiet. Must try harder.)

(don't worry - you have content in these posts. 
content is always welcome...)

David Barak
Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise:

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around