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

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:54:33PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 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.)

Again: you are talking about theoretical worst-case absolute numbers.
I'm talking about real life.

I guess you would agree with me that it's currently no problem at all
to obtain an ASN and IPv4 PI if you want to multihome. Right?
This has lead to about 17k active ASN out there. Which translates to
17k-20k (let's give some headroom for special routes for anycast etc)
IPv6 PA/PI routes. Where is your problem? I don't see multiple million
of end sites doing BGP multihoming. Not now, not in ten years. It's
not that we have hundred of thousand of NEW people JUST WAITING for the
availability of PI out there.

So, when do you estimate will we see let's say more than 100k active
ASNs out there? And even then we're talking about 100k, not 1 million,
not 10 million.

> >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.

I'm not into hardware design so I won't comment on that. Oliver is
much more qualified in that as he actually have built those things.
:-)

> >>>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?

At least the same set of features as IPv4 PI BGP multihoming with no
new added significant downsides.

Perhaps folks should start listening to that instead of sticking the
head into the sand.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0