[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI

as long as it's "something new", let's get a fresh subject line...  :-)

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Elmar K. Bins wrote:

> Just to get the thing rolling again with something new :-)
>
>
> gert at space.net (Gert Doering) wrote:
>
> > Personally, I've seen some doomsayers so far ("IPv6 will die if we have
> > no PI!"), but I can't remember having seen a proposal for rules that let
> > "those that we all agree should have it" have PI, and "those that we
> > all agree should not have it" not have it.
>
> How about: Every ASN is entitled to an IPv6 block. Full stop.
> Then you can tie it to independency of routing and to the rules for ASNs.
>
> Anyone else think along these lines?
> 					Elmi.

this was the original ARIN proposal 2005-1, which could not reach
consensus.  The last time around it was re-worked to add more restrictions
and again failed because other folks felt it was too restrictive.  There
are actually two issues:

1) the high cost of renumbering in a large organization

2) multi-homing for network reliability and resiliency

the problem with using ASNs is that when you think over the projected
lifetime of IPv6, there will be *lots* of ASNs.  Note that the 4-byte ASN
draft is entering the standards track in IETF.  Don't think that tying PI
to ASNs is anything more that passing the problem to the next generation
(if that long...  :-)

It would seem obvious that as network connectivity becomes essential for
doing business, it must be reliable.  It is unwise to carry forward the
IPv4 multi-homing model for network resilience with just faith that the
system will be able to scale to an ever larger number of routes.  IPv6 has
so far failed to deliver on its original promise of seamless renumbering
and multi-homing using multiple prefixes.  The hard problems still need to
be solved in a way that can scale for decades to come.

regards,  /Lea