[address-policy-wg] "too many" /64 or /48 assignments causing address space exhaustion

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

> On 3 May 2011, at 09:48, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
>
>  If an ISP receive max 2 IPv6 blocks, this is just two entries in the
>> (current BGP) routing table.
>>
>> The use of long prefixes in the costumer's network means more costumers
>> served from the same block.
>>
>> Is there a point where we disagree?
>>
>
> Not with the above. However the initial context of this discussion was
> about issing PI space to end customers. [For some definition of PI space and
> end customer.] So if one of those customers was to get one of these long
> prefixes, they might want to keep it if they switch providers => an extra
> route for a mickey-mouse amount of space. We know from v4 that this is a Bad
> Thing.
>

Fully agree. The IPv6 PI space concept is Bad Thing, because creates routing
table fragmantation. Short prefix or long prefix - it does not matter.
Routing table fragmentation do matter.

G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110503/617aa572/attachment.html>