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

On 5-apr-05, at 16:14, Daniel Roesen wrote:

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

Real life has a tendency to reflect theoretical worst-case absolute 
numbers, given enough time.

> 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?

For me or for the IPv4 BGP table?

> 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.

Nonsense. The number of active ASes in the IPv6 table is around 500, 
and the number of active prefixes around 700. However, none of the 100 
largest web sites is reachable over IPv6, so this is all meaningless. 
The only thing we know from experience with IPv4 is that there are way 
too many people who don't care about the routing table, so if it's 
POSSIBLE to do bad things, there will be someone who DOES bad things.

> 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.

Then why do we need it?

I see no natural limit on the number of potential multihomers. What if 
Linksys puts BGP in their home gateways, with a nice wizzard to take 
care of setting everything up? You may very well be right that the 
number of multihomers will grow slower than the capacity of the 
routers, but without knowing this for sure making this possible is 
irresponsible.

ISPs have a very bad reputation for reliability and more and more 
business critical stuff happens over the internet. I think it's only a 
matter of time before multihoming will be all the rage, especially if 
it's easy to do.

>> 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.

Read the multi6 documents. This stuff has been discussed to death. 
Giving some people PI until the routers almost break isn't the 
solution.