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

On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > 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.

I disagree.  Most ISPs I know of announce a large number of non-
contiguous address blocks.  With ipv6, this will drop to just one or two
in the short term;  longer term, it will grow, but not even nearly at
the same rate as ipv4 allocations.

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

Geoff Huston's talk about this at RIPE was rather interesting.  Yes, the
routing table will grow.  But that's only part of the problem;  a bigger
part of the problem is routing churn.  

Take a look at pages 37 and 38 of:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-bgp-review.pdf

You can see that there is a small number of organisations responsible
for massive numbers of updates.  I can tell you that If I were supreme
ruler of the universe, these organisations would get a smack on the
face.

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

The prefix announcement disappears, but the space is lost to the
available address pool forever (under current rules).

Nick