[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI

Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Roger Jorgensen:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I'm a relative newcomer to this area.  Could you give a pointer to
> > some explanation *why* the IPv6 address space size causes this
> > problem?
> 
> Just do the math yourself and consider all possibilities and how the IPv4
> space are used... but some numbers
> 
> - the address space is 128bit.
> - we have a 64bits host prefix at the lower end.
> - the above give us 64bits of network numbers, that's quite a few billions
> of networks. BUT
> - the /48 boundary leaving us with a usable globaly network space of 48bit
> - from the 48bits only a /8 are usable as it is now, the other 7 /8 are
> reserved for the future.
> 
> The absolute max global routing table would by this be 40bits, of
> course the real one are alot smaller. That one is closer to 32bits, and
> that is STILL A huge number, probably more close to 20bits of entries.
> 
> a last comment: the entire idea behind /64 and /48 will cause IPv6 to fail
> as it is now. Odd as it is, we don't have enough IP space in IPv6. Sure it
> will last 10, maybe 15-20 years, but that did IPv4 to......

You post is still pretty content-free.  You're waving with your hand
but what do you propose exactly?  I've posted my proposals under "Andre's
guide to fix IPv6".  When do you with yours?

-- 
Andre