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

On 29 June 2011 14:25, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com> wrote:
> This is a bit of a complicated hat situation. The RIPE NCC merely executes
> policy set by the community, so with my board hat on I find it difficult
> to go as far as even offering suggestions. While I do sympathise with the
> rationale behind the proposal, doing it this way strikes me as having an
> awful lot of (unintended?) side effects. I personally don't have a better
> suggestion to achieve resolution of the problem that this proposal aims to
> fix, but at the same time I'm unconvinced that everybody's who's been
> supporting the proposal has been doing so for the problem this policy aims
> to fix, and not one of its (again, unintended?) side effects.


Okay can we be clear about the reason for doing this before we
continue with the discussion...

A single IPv6 route will consume 4 x the space of a v4 route, whilst
we are in the transition phase between v4 and v6 and having to
allocate memory to both protocols adding potentially the equivalent to
70k to the routing table 'just because its easier' doesn't strike me
as the most sensible thing to do in the world.

Transition between 2 IPv6 suppliers (unlike IPv4) "shouldn't" require
the same level of manual reconfiguration due IPv6's complexity crying
out for some form of automation in its deployment in the first place.
What I believe we should be looking at is education of the differences
between v4 and v6 rather than changing policy.

J
-- 

James Blessing
07989 039 476