[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Masataka Ohta" <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")


> Joergen Hovland;
>
>First of all, if you insist writing your name beyond ASCII,
>that's fine if it is common local practice within your
>country. However, you should accept the fact that your
>international mail is often treated as SPAM.

ありがとう。 今固定される

(test)

>
> >>One important factor not explained yet very well is that BGP
> >>converges slowly as the number of ASes increases, which is
> >>another reason to limit the global routing table size.
>
> Who said 8192 of the global routing table size fatal?

There are N amount of LIR's and other companies in the need of prefixes. Any limit below N is not going to work.
Since N is a dynamic variable it can not be permanently set.

>
> It, of course, is doable, as exemplified by the current reality with
> >100K.
>
> > problem was in the 80's in the long run. The problem with the current IPv6 specification as I see it is purely technical and
should
> > be dealt with by the vendors making the IP routers. There is more than one way to implement routing algorithms, and several of
them
> > could equally give the best performance. Of course it would help if the RIR's tried not to hand out more than 1 prefix per LIR.
>
> Wrong. It does impose unnecessary restriction on mergers of LIRs.

I said only to try, not to demand. Unnecessary fragmentation should always be avoided.

>
> > If a
> > LIR is multihomed they should be allocated a prefix.
>
> If the LIR covers large enough (a lot lot larger than 200), yes
> of course.

I meant if the LIR was multihomed, period. You can't deny v4 LIR's a v6 prefix if you want v6 to be deployed in this century. Isn't
the only reason why v6 policies are so strict compared to v4 today due to the socalled multi-homing problem? Are we afraid of that
we won't be able to develop better hardware/software that can support even larger routingtables tomorrow ?

> > Then we would have major problems deprecating IPv4. PI allocations doesn't
> > exist anymore with IPv6 so that problem is solved..?
>
> The only technical way to deprecate v4 is to exhaust the v4 address
> space.
>

You are probably correct.  But if the same restrictive v6 policies exist when v4 is exhausted people might start to pay good money
(like a blackmarket) for v4 multihomed capable prefixes since they can't get multihomed capable v6 prefixes.
Then v4 and v6 will together live for ever.

Joergen Hovland