[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting

Hi Florian,

>> I don't know if this is a waranted use of PI space. The problem here
>> is that the extra route has a global cost for everyone.
> 
> This is an extremely short-sighted viewpoint.
> 
> More routing table entries enable finer-grained routing decisions.  In
> many cases, this leads to improvements according to some cost metric.
> There are isolated inefficiencies, but you cannot remove them without
> decreasing overall performance.
> 
> Isn't BGP UPDATE rate more of an issue than the table size these days,
> anyway?

If the people in the working group feel that routing table size is not as important anymore as it was a few years ago it might be possible to relax the policy about IPv6 PI space. It doesn't solve the problem that access providers that run on IPv4 PI space can't run on IPv6 PI space. These seem to be two separate issues.

Thanks,
Sander