[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

On 5-apr-05, at 15:37, Daniel Roesen wrote:

>> The problem is that PI isn't scalable.

> It's as scalable as PA. There is no inherent difference in scaling how
> many ISPs there are to the number of end users. Both grow in similar
> progression. It's not like O(n) vs. O(n^2) or so.

I grant you that there is no difference whether 10000 ISPs inject 10000 
PA prefixes or 10000 end-users inject 10000 PI prefixes, but I hardly 
think the potential number of ISPs is similar to the potential number 
of end-users. (Or the actual number for both, your pick.)

> So now start backing your "isn't scalable" claim (in comparision to 
> PA).
> And back that by hard numbers showing real problems.

Didn't you read my message about memory bandwidth? If that isn't real 
enough for you then this discussion is moot because we're obviously 
operating on different time scales.

>>> There is no REAL multihoming without PI yet. And the IETF recently
>>> narrowed down the road they want to take (solution space) that
>>> guarrantees that the result won't fit people's needs. The 
>>> multi6=>shim6
>>> transition was (for me and quite a few others) the "end of all hope".

>> Why?

> Because the outcome won't provide what people do ask for.

And what are people asking for?