[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive

Nick Hilliard wrote:

>>Folks are going to come to terms with the fact that the v6 routing
>>table is going to have large numbers of entries.

> IPv6 will be much better aggregated than ipv4, because the allocation
> blocks are larger, and the requirement for LIRs to request multiple
> non-contiguous blocks of space will be much lower.

It merely means difference of a small constant factor.

>  This necessarily
> means that ipv6 table growth is going to be lesser than the ipv4 table
> growth, which has also lagged behind hardware speed increases.  What's
> the problem here??

IPv4 routing table is already too large that its convergence is
prohibitively slow.

Moreover, as hardware becomes more and more optical, large routing
table becomes slower and slower to lookup.

>      1. there is no default means of returning PI space to the RIR if
>         the end-user disappears

> Problem #1 is a really serious issue and needs to be tackled urgently.

Not at all. If the end-user disappears, its entries in global routing
tables are tackled automatically.

						Masataka Ohta