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

On 29 June 2011 20:04, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:
> 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.

True, but thats no excuse to pour fuel onto the fire.

>> 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.

Okay but the point about the allocation of resources is that it should
be done for technical rather than just pure
business/political/paranoid reasons. Everyone is saying that IPv6 will
'last forever' but they said the same thing about oil too

J
-- 

James Blessing
07989 039 476