[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)

Hello,

> > 1. As far as I can see there are no fiscal issues here apart from
the
> usual issue of more PI's meaning more NCC work meaning more staff
> (potentially) and hence more costs.
> >
> > The potential cost of applying more staff at the RIRs like RIPE NCC
> is just one issue. The more important issue is that  all the line
cards
> of the core routers should be replaced if we can not limit the grows
of
> the forwarding tables (FIB)s. AND IPv4 address space trading allready
> might create problems concerning the grows.
> >
> > A total upgrade beed a couple of billon dollars. Unfortunately even
> if this many could be spent, the slow down provoked by the bigger
table
> size could not be avoided.
> >
> > Therefore if we want to avoid total collaps or total up-grade and
> slow down in the very near future then all the FIBs grows should be
> minimised.
> >
> > Any proposal that might provoke a sudden grows of the FIBs should be
> postponed until the technology would evolve enough and allow to handle
> fast enough tha definitely larger FIBs.
> >
> 
> you still haven't provided any reasons why there should be a sudden
> spike and evidence suggesting that there will be.
Why? You know - Nigel is a real representative of ISP who knows the
things. He said - it'll harm his company's business if the requirement
would be removed. And still you do not count it as an argument?

> - It's highly unlikely that there will be more IPv6 PI Prefixes than
> IPv4 PI Prefixes any time soon in ANY way, that's BY DESIGN of IPv6
>   ("one prefix per entity" - usually). If your routers cannot handle
> that, you're doing something seriously wrong, or you have a wrong idea
>   about the whole concept
Why someone should ask you about how to do their business? As far as I
know - the Internet is on and going without the proposal and not the
least role in that duty is due to the people like Nigel. You are asking
for not necessary privileges for very small end-user companies and do
not hear the "business-oriented" Internet companies.

> 
> - It's highly likely that the IPv4 table WILL grow faster if PI-shops
> aren't able to use IPv6 without multihoming because they
>   will literally buy smaller and smaller IPv4 prefixes and announce
> them to stay in business when they grow, so instead of one IPv6 PI
> Prefix you will
>   provoke 10 IPv4 PI Prefixes in some cases - because THERE ALREADY IS
> NO MULTIHOMING REQUIREMENT for IPv4 PI
No, you haven't done your homework again. There are many restrictions
about the length of the IPv4 prefixes. And this is the long time the
restrictions will ease. So...

> All this proposal does is ease up IPv6 deployment for some entities
who
> - for whatever stupid reason - rely on PI addresses without being
> multi-homed themselves.
> And THAT is what the majority should want, more IPv6, soon.
IMHO you counterargument yourself here. On one hand you've said that
there will be a small number of PI, on another - it will speed up IPv6
deployment. IPv6 will grow without the PI-holders definitely. And this
proposal doesn't have ANY relation with that.

Regards,
Vladislav Potapov