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

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.


Last I checked around there were some promissing new proposal on the 
way for how to solve this very basic problem. And in the meantime, drop 
the thought about multihoming and PI space, start to think about other 
ways to use the possibility IPv6 give us. Just to mention maybe the 
biggest advantage, we have that extended header part of IPv6, it give us 
endless possibilities.



and yes I do have some idea about how it can be done but no one really 
bother to consider geo-based IP's either so... :) Not to forget it quite 
likely will undermine the entire business case for how ISP's today 
operate.




-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              |
rogerj at stud.cs.uit.no        | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no      | roger at jorgensen.no
-------------------------------------------------------