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

James,

I know this has been discussed several times, but I can't stop myself...

On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 14:50 +0100, James Blessing wrote:
> 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.

My understanding is that routing table growth is largely fueled by
traffic engineering rather than multihoming. So while routing table
growth is a concern, PI policies are probably not a large factor.

> 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.

My further understanding is that desire for PI is mostly for
non-technical reasons. I don't think anything can make this motivation
go away. Companies want it.

--
Shane