[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

On Nov 8, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Albert Siersema wrote:
> Maybe the current solutions don't fit the problems anymore.

Maybe the IAB should have a workshop exploring this problem.

>> I tell you, widespread PI adoption is poison for the network.
> Maybe, maybe not.

No, really, it is. Given IPv6 uses the exact same routing technology as IPv4, the same problems apply. We couldn't flat route 32 bits so the IPv6 solution is to flat route 48 bits?

> If there is an element of the business, most of the people involved only argue on behalf of the (big) ISP side.


I think you have it backwards.  Who do you think will be able to afford the multi-tens of millions of euros necessary to purchase the routers that will have sufficient TCAM space to deal with PI-for-everyone?

However, you are correct that perfectly understandable business concerns are driving this issue. The likely (inevitable?) end result will (again) be prefix length filters and accusations of money grubbing evil greedy bastard ISPs. Been there, done that, still have a few t-shirts left. 

I wonder who is going to play Sean Doran this time around...

Regards,
-drc