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

Hi,

Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
>>> I also don't understand the whole decision circling back, endlessly, to 
>>> restrictive policies when nobody actually seems to want IPv6 (assuming 
>>> this is still what we're talking about)
> 
>> The majority of those who post on the RIPE mailing lists deeply fear
>> that there is a real demand for IPv6, so much that their routers are
>> overloaded.  I don't know why.
> 
> My understanding is that the IPv4 Internet failed to limit the
> size of DFZ that BGP convergence is taking prphibitively long
> time for mission critical applications.

Based on what?
Please elaborate.

(I run Corporate Networks with routing table sizes >> Internet DFZ due
to /32 announcements and such stuff, no BGP Problems on good setups.)

> Moreover, considering bandwidth requirement for the next 5 or
> 10 years, I don't think backbone routers can have huge routing
> tables.

I think i don't need to add anything here, other's already replied to
that. It's - sorry - nonsense.

But yes, of course, the smaller the table, the better.
There is just no agreement on how to achieve a "small table".

I say (like others), there is no problem at all, IPv6 Addressing Scheme
and additional Multihoming solutions solve all problems on their own.

One should rather care for the IPv4 table, it will continue to grow for
a decade or so.
THAT is the problem which fills your TCAM memories, not the growing IPv6
table.

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================