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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/
[ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lea Roberts
lea.roberts at stanford.edu
Mon Nov 21 18:41:04 CET 2005
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Roger Jorgensen wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Lea Roberts wrote: > <snip> > > the problem with using ASNs is that when you think over the projected > > lifetime of IPv6, there will be *lots* of ASNs. Note that the 4-byte ASN > > draft is entering the standards track in IETF. Don't think that tying PI > > to ASNs is anything more that passing the problem to the next generation > > (if that long... :-) > > > > It would seem obvious that as network connectivity becomes essential for > > doing business, it must be reliable. It is unwise to carry forward the > > IPv4 multi-homing model for network resilience with just faith that the > > system will be able to scale to an ever larger number of routes. IPv6 has > > so far failed to deliver on its original promise of seamless renumbering > > and multi-homing using multiple prefixes. The hard problems still need to > > be solved in a way that can scale for decades to come. > > Can't we all just drop using the word multihoming and IPv6 PI? > They all reflect back to how thing was done with IPv4 and those ways are > doomed to fail with IPv6 simply due to the size of the IP space. <snip> Well said.
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]