[address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call

Hello Mikael,


On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Turchanyi Geza wrote:
>
>  Let's clarify first: roughly how many router cards MUST be upgraded if the
>> typical 0,5M limit reached (counting twice en IPv6 enty).
>>
>> In parallel, we should better understand the slow-down consequences as
>> well.
>>
>
> While I agree with you, this is way too late, and people don't generally
> care about this cost (at least not officially). RIPE is disconnected from
> routing, and the routing subsystem is not something people generally care
> about in this policy wg (my opinion).
>
> RIPE hands out addresses, they do not do routing.
>

Well, there was a routing-wg of RIPE...


>
> So let's make the IPv6 PI policy the same as IPv4 (remove multihoming) and
> then we monitor growth. When it hits 100k IPv6 PI (or some other number)
> prefixes, let's review again.
>
> NO.Address allocation should not follow "a la mode" trends. The limits of
the existing infrastrucure should not be forgotten.

My dystopian view is that this won't be fixed but instead vendors will have
> to create routers that can handle many million of routes in the next
> decades. This will cost a lot of money, but that might still be cheaper than
> trying to get smaller ISPs and enterprise to aquire and handle renumbering
> mechanisms that haven't even been developed yet.
>
>
> I do not want to stop the development at all. BUT. let's first develop the
new technology, test it, prove it, then we might enjoy the freedom created.

BUT doing the other way around will create just mess. Or even a collapse,
within one or may be one and half year.

Please think about this limit also.

> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>
Thanks,

Géza
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111004/84483a24/attachment.html>