[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

> Note that ARIN has been and continues to have discussions about how to
> give out PI space to end sites, but in a way that doesn't explode the
> routing tables going forward. I think there is (very strong) support
> for the idea of giving out more PI space, the difficulty has been in
> coming up with details that people are comfortable won't explode the
> routing tables going forward. I.e., that in five years we look back
> and say "oops, we should not have done that, now what do we do"

On the ARIN Public Policy mailing list, I have suggested that we
open up another chunk of the IPv6 address space to use for 
geotopological addresses that will enable aggregation at
the city level and allow small and mid-size companies to
multihome using BGP without adding to the global routing table.
If these companies are using geotopological addresses then
their detailled routes are only visible inside one city. In
the rest of the world there is only a single city prefix,
or, if we can create a second regional level that groups 
cities within a continent, then there would be even fewer
routes visible globally.

This reduces pressure on the global routing table so that
people who cannot feasibly use geotopological addresses
have more room to work with. If you go to the ARIN site
and look at the PPML archives for November sorted by author,
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2005-November/author.html
then you can read the 11 messages that I posted, describing
geotopological addressing and answering various questions
about it.

Feel free to continue the discussion on address-policy-wg at ripe.net
if you wish. It doesn't really belong on the ipv6-wg list because
it is a question of policy whether or not to allocate these
addresses and which allocation rules to use.

--Michael Dillon