[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Roger Jorgensen wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Lea Roberts wrote:
> <snip>
> > 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.
>
> Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI?
> They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are
> doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space.
<snip>

Well said.