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

> What we do need to make up our collective minds is:
> 
>  - do we want to see IPv6 deployed?
>    (some of the comments can be read as "let's not deploy IPv6,
because
>    the IPv4 routing table is already too large!" - and I'm not
> convinced
>    that this line of reasoning is conclusive)
My answer - yes.

 
>  - do we think that the group of networks that would get IPv6 PI under
>    the changed policy, but can't get IPv6 PI now is...
> 
>      a) large enough that it makes a difference regarding IPv6
> deployment?
No.

>      b) small enough to avoid exploding the routing table?
No.

> 
> As for "b)", the numbers given by Alex Le Heux set a certain upper
> boundary
> for the number of IPv6 PI prefixes to expect - if every user of an
IPv4
> PI
> routing table slot today (in the RIPE region) will get an IPv6 PI
> block,
> we're "in the 10.000s" of routes, but not "in the millions".  So we
> have
> some numbers.
There is rather uneasy answers to this as soon as times changes. As soon
as IPv6 PI would be easy to get and easy to hold - there will be a
"market" for it. It would be presented as a gift, got for prestige,
"future", "presence in the Internet", "cool practice" and so on. So you
cannot rely on digits for rather tough IPv4 PI policy. Such "blocks"
will be nothing (in terms of traffic and usefulness of the deployment),
but will clog the routing table a lot, inspiring ISPs to constantly
change the equipments and delaying full deployment of full-working IPv6.
As soon as the first answers (a) is "No" in my opinion, it is preferable
for me to postpone the easing of the requirement until IPv6 starts.

Regards,
Vladislav Potapov