[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"

Oliver Bartels;

>>Just for your (other than Kurt) information, there is running code
>>of a multi6 proposal which does not bloat global routing table
>>size, which has been running even before the multi6 WG was formed.
> 
> With todays >10GB backbones, we need running *hardware*.

Sure. The proposal needs no change on routers, which is why
the code is running, of course, over commercial v6 routers.

>>The only problem for the deployment of the proposal is that
>>IPv6 is not deployed.
> 
> This is *the* cat-tail-problem we are talking about:
> IPv6 *won't* be deployed if it can't provide at a minimum all
> commonly used features of IPv4 and does something better.

Currently, the only merit of v6 over v4 is that v6 address
space is larger.

Trying to add other merit, v6 became unncessarily complex and,
thus, worse than v4.

The only exception is the possiblity to limit the number of
global routing table entries. See below.

> Multihoming with unique and world wide valid IP adresses
> *is* a feature commonly used by *large* customers who
> pay significant amounts of the ISP infrastructure.

That is a problem of v6, not of the proposal above.

> At the end of the day the technical guys have to justify the
> invests into new infrastructure to the commercial guys.
> They will simply ask:
> "What does IPv6 gain to our company"
> "Oh well, instead of having first class PA/PI adresses, we will
>   have second class multi6 accessibility and our true address
>   range will be at the mercy of our Upstream/ISP"

The proper answer should be:

	Because IPv6 requires only 8192 global routing table
	entries, 10G backbone router costs 100 times less than
	that of IPv4

> IMHO the only chance of a commercially successfull
> deployment is some sort of make-it-better-than-BGP
> which can handle large amounts of prefix data.

Huh?

Do you mean we shouldn't have policy to allow a lot
of prefixes?

> As we can't expect such a change in the near future,
> in my personal view the policy needs a modification
> which:
> a) advances and pushes forward IPv6 deployment,
> instead of the >=200 limit which is rather contraproductive.

The only limitation globally necessary is on the number of
TLAs. Other limitations are local issues.

> b) *currently* keeps the cover on the multihoming pot
> until the problem is *really* solved by technology.

The problem is proven to be solved.

						Masataka Ohta