This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Wed Mar 30 13:40:03 CEST 2011
Hi, On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:18:44PM +0200, Erik Bais wrote: > As LIR's don't have the requirement to multihome their IP space, means that > the community is in agreement that this PI IPv6 space required a hurdle in > order to stop a wild-growth on the IPv6 routing table growth, however if > someone pays their way into the community (become a LIR), nobody cares > anymore about the routing table growth and we gladly take your money and > proceed. That (money) is not the specific point why there is no multihoming requirement for a LIR. Consider a LIR with 4000 customers that wants to change upstream - they not only have to renumber their own network, but also renumber 4000 customers, which is roughly 4001 times the amount of work compared to "one end customer needs to renumber". This community has decided that the burden of renumbering every now and then is considered acceptable for an end customer (given that we need to balance with the routing table, and there are MANY MORE end customers than LIRs - the routing system will not be able to handle "every end customer is using PI space"), but that LIRs are to be "the aggregation points" in the routing system, and the routing system will handle "1 route per LIR" just fine. Earlier proposals saw a strict limitation to "at maximum 8192 Top Level Aggregates are permitted into the routing system", but nobody has ever been able to define "who is an important-enough ISP to get a TLA and who is not, and has to closely tie their business to a competitor" - so we changed that to "every LIR is considered equally important and can get their own address block" (with an implied "to number their customers"). I'm not saying that we can't change the way it is now, mainly trying to explain how things came to be. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI request is turned down for my multihomed hosting facility - Why?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]